Om Parkash vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Om Parkash (contractor) and Lakhan Singh (Sarpanch), sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for offences including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, alleging misappropriation of government funds amounting to approximately Rs. 11 crores. The allegations stem from irregularities in development works carried out by the Gram Panchayat, Shikohpur. An initial inquiry by the SDO found no incriminating evidence. However, a subsequent inquiry by the ADC, Gurugram, after the area was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Manesar, revealed serious irregularities, including payments for unexecuted works and inflated prices for materials. The FIR was registered based on this second inquiry. The petitioners contend that the works were done as per procedure, and the second inquiry was flawed.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The Court noted that an initial inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) found no incriminating evidence against the petitioner and indicated that the works were done with the Panchayat's consent and approval. A subsequent inquiry by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) was conducted after the area's transfer to the Municipal Corporation, Manesar, and this inquiry was against the petitioner. The Court acknowledged that while the second inquiry report is legally admissible, the existence of two conflicting inquiry reports creates doubt. Considering that the Court is deciding an anticipatory bail petition, and in light of the first inquiry report favoring the petitioner, coupled with the delay in the complaint and other peculiar factors of the case, the Court concluded that it was neither a case for pre-trial incarceration nor custodial interrogation. The interim anticipatory bail granted earlier was made absolute. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition and not for diluting the scope or contents of the findings in the second inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of misappropriation of government funds, as alleged in the FIR, necessitate custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration for the petitioners, considering the pendency of anticipatory bail applications? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 438 CrPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argue that the initial inquiry by the SDO found no irregularities, and the subsequent inquiry by the ADC was conducted without affording them an opportunity to present their case, rendering it unreliable. They also claim that tender procedures were not mandatory at the time of the works and that they paid GST on the bills. They further contend that the allegations of embezzlement are unfounded and that the works were executed as per instructions, supported by photographs of completed projects. The petitioner Om Parkash also raised concerns about the inquiry being conducted after the area's merger with the Municipal Corporation and questioned the scope of the ADC's inquiry. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and the complainant argue that massive misappropriation of funds has occurred. They highlight specific instances of inflated purchases, such as a roller machine bought for Rs. 19,45,000/- when its market value was Rs. 5 Lacs, and solar panels purchased at double the price. They also point out that payments were made for works allegedly not executed, including a basketball court and football ground, and that construction during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic for certain works is questionable. The State also opposed the petitioner's attempt to seek refuge under caste, calling it a deplorable excuse.