The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to grant or cancel bail is based on considerations such as the nature of the offenses, the status of the investigation, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

K.C.Gupta, J.

1. This is a petition filed by State of Haryana against Anand Singh Dangi and four others for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 3 dated 8.4.2000 under sections 218, 406, 409, 481, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala Range, Ambala and bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide her order dated 7.6.2001.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sh. Anand Singh Dangi was Revenue Minister from 1991 to May/June 1996. During the period from 1.1.1996 to 21.6.1996, land measuring 1329 acres belonging to Rehabilitation Department was allotted in 172 cases to different persons. Similarly, land measuring 1405 acres and 14 marlas was allotted to 94 persons at different places during this very period. The land was allotted to the persons claiming themselves to be displaced persons from West Pakistan. It is also an undisputed fact that in each allotment case, the file was dealt with by the subordinate staff upto Tehsildar (Sales) and thereafter it was directly put up before the Revenue Minister who had returned the same with the remarks "SEEN".

3. The case of the prosecution is that the said allotments were made in a totally illegal and fraudulent manner, although verification was required to be made as per instructions of the Rehabilitation Department.

4. There is no dispute about it that the allottees were subjected to cut; prior to 22.10.1953 and it is only after the order passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 841 to 1968, the scheme of cut imposed upon by the Government was set-aside, making them entitled to possess the land in equal share as they had possessed in Pakistan before partition. The order passed by the then Revenue Minister approving the scheme of the Government regarding imposition of cut was also set-aside on the ground of jurisdiction. The case registered related to 92 files regarding allotment of land to the displaced persons who had migrated to India after Indo-Pak division in the year 1947. 17 persons were arrayed as accused in the said FIR. The claimants had then sought allotment of the land which had been denied to them on account of cut. The applications were processed and the allegations are that without verifying the entitlement and the identity of the claimants, orders of allotment were made and 1329 acres of land, as stated above, was allotted to different persons. A question was raised in the legislative assembly and the matter was enquired into by the Commissioner, Ambala and it was found that the allotment had been made without verifying the claims and also without any proper verification. It was also observed that it was a case of land grabbing and it involves officers of various levels including the Revenue Minister. Para Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order dated 7.6.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, of which cancellation is sought, read as under :-

"5. The investigation state in this case is over and the challan has already been filed. 13 accused out of the total 17 accused have been released on bail. The bail application of accused A.S. Dangi was opposed by the State on the ground that his earlier bail application has been ejected. Learned PP had referred to an authoirty reported as Kanwal Kishore Jerath v. State (U.T. Chandigarh), 2000(4) RCR(Criminal) 600, but the facts of the present case are entirely different. The anticipatory bail application of accused A.S. Dangi had been dismissed and under the directions of Honble Supreme Court, petitioner A.S. Dangi had surrendered before the Court. This is the first regular bail application, which has been filed. No other application, seeking regular bail had been disposed of. Before me, no argument had been made that the petitioners would tamper with evidence or flee from justice. In non- bailable offence, the Court ha