Randhir Singh vs. State Of Haryana
Facts
The petitioner, Randhir Singh, a contractor, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 35 dated 21.01.2022, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa. The FIR was lodged by the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Haryana. The allegations are that out of 15 tubewells to be laid with downgraded cable, only 8 were installed. A loss of Rs. 4,60,564/- is alleged, with the petitioner accused of usurping public money. The FIR states the contractor firm, in connivance with departmental officials, defrauded by using bogus GST bills for sub-standard Finolex cable, thereby committing corruption and defrauding the State revenue. The petitioner relied on a departmental enquiry report dated 18.10.2022.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the seriousness of the allegations, which included fraud, usurpation of public money, and connivance with government officials. The Court noted that the alleged fraud was eating into State revenue. The Court found that the departmental enquiry report, relied upon by the petitioner, could not be given much weight in light of the specific allegations of connivance of government officials. The Court emphasized the gravity of the offence, describing it as a routine matter that had been hushed up by a departmental enquiry. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to grant the concession of anticipatory bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 35 dated 21.01.2022, registered under Sections 420/409/120-B IPC, considering the seriousness of the allegations of fraud and usurpation of public money. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, relying on a departmental enquiry report dated 18.10.2022. No specific legal arguments or reliance on statutory provisions or precedents were recorded for the petitioner. Respondent's contention: The State of Haryana, through the FIR and implicit in the Court's reasoning, argued that the allegations of fraud, connivance with departmental officials, use of sub-standard materials, and usurpation of public money were serious and warranted denial of anticipatory bail. The State highlighted the gravity of the offence and the routine nature of such alleged misconduct.
Sections Cited
Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 105-CRM-M-1416-2023 Date of Decision: 12.01.2023 **** **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL **** Present: Mr. HS Jalal, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner **** Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.35 dated 21.01.2022 under Sections 420/409/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa.
The allegations as per the FIR, lodged at the instance of Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Haryana, are that a total of 15 tubewells with downgraded cable was to be laid, out of which only 8 tubewells, were installed. The complete details have also been given therein with regard to the location of the tubewells as well as the name of the contractors involved. A loss of Rs.4,60,564/- is alleged to have been caused, which has been usurped by the petitioner-contractor. It has also been alleged in the FIR that the contractor firm was required to install the material of the prescribed standard leve
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.