Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Om Parkash Chautala - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Crl. Misc. No. 10196-M of 1997.
Decided On : 30 July, 1997
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SECTION 438 CRPC - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 13-D(i), (ii), (iii) AND E - CHALLENGING ORDER OF SPECIAL JUDGE, SIRSA, DISMISSING ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION - PETITIONER ALLEGEDLY AMASSED WEALTH DISPROPORTIONATE TO HIS KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME - HELD, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO ANTICIPATORY BAIL AS NO PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY STATE TO ESTABLISH ALLEGATIONS - NO EVIDENCE OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR THREATENING WITNESSES - CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON PETITIONER, INCLUDING NOT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, NOT LEAVING COUNTRY WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND SURRENDERING PASSPORT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Om Parkash Chautala, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the order of the Special Judge, Sirsa, dismissing his bail application. Chautala was accused of amassing wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income during his tenure as Chief Minister of Haryana and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). The allegations against him were made by his brother, Partap Singh, who filed a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge had dismissed Chautala's bail application, holding that there was sufficient evidence against him to justify his arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed Chautala's petition and granted him anticipatory bail. The Court held that the State had not collected any prima facie evidence to establish the allegations against Chautala. The Court also noted that there was no evidence that Chautala had tampered with evidence or threatened witnesses. The Court imposed certain conditions on Chautala, including that he should not tamper with evidence, should not leave the country without permission, and should surrender his passport.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. 2. Whether the petitioner had tampered with evidence or threatened witnesses. 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail as the State had not collected any prima facie evidence to establish the allegations against him. The Court also noted that there was no evidence that the petitioner had tampered with evidence or threatened witnesses.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitioner's petition and granted him anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.
R.L. Anand, J. - Feeling apprehensive of his arrest and having reasons to believe Shri Om Parkash Chautala son of Ch. Devi Lal, who remained at one time the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana and who is at present the leader of the opposition in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha is none else but the son of Ch. Devi Lal, who also at one point of time remained Deputy Prime Minister of India, Shri Om Parkash Chautala has filed the present petition under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 34 dated 17.1.1997 under Sections 13-D(i), (ii), (iii) and E of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered in police station Sadar Dabwali.
2. The complainant Shri Partap Singh is the real brother of Shri Om Parkash Chautala, who submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sirsa for taking necessary action against Shri Om Parkash Chautala under the Prevention of Corruption Act and he made allegations which can be summarised in the following manner :-
3. Shri Om Parkash Chautala previously owned only 30 acres of canal irrigated ancestral land in village Teja Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. In the year 1977 Ch. Devi Lal became the Chief Minister of Haryana State after a long political struggle of 40 years. The petitioner Shri Om Parkash Chautala tasted the fruit of corruption when Ch. Devi Lal let him become the extra-constitutional centre of authority. Ch. Devi Lal remained Chief Minister of the State of Haryana in the years 1977 to 1979. He also became the Chief Minister in the year 1987 and in this year Shri Om Parkash Chautala virtually became de-facto Chief Minister of Haryana and enjoyed unbridled power for four and half years. Ch. Devi Lal when he became Chief Minister for the first time had a clean record. However, when Ch. Devi Lal became the Chief Minister second time he allowed his son Shri Om Parkash Chautala to usurp the power in the teeth of strong opposition from all sides. All political and constitutional powers were virtually transfered to Shri Om Parkash Chautala, who declared himself as political heir and successor of Ch. Devi Lal. He behaved as if he is a nominated heir to the crown. At this people of Haryana particularly and the people of India generally became stunned and shocked. The petitioner became more closer to his father when the people of Haryana State left the loyalty of Shri Devi Lal. It is alleged by the complainant that during the period 1977 and 1987 to 1991 Shri Om Parkash Chautala amassed wealth running into hundred of crores by corrupt and illegal means. Ch. Devi Lal was a dummy Chief Minister and Shri Om Parkash Chautala behaved like a super Chief Minister. He owns and possesses properties and wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. He has hundred of crores in Swiss Banks and he has invested huge money in Benami business in Hong Kong. According to the complainant Shri Om Parkash Chautala has sunk about Rs. 300 crores in a British bank known as B.C.C.I. He has visited London many times accompanied by the so called God-man Tantric Chandraswami, who, according to the complainant, is an expert in corrupting political high-ups. The foreign journeys of the petitioner can be easily ascertained from his passport. The complainant further stated in his complaint that Shri Om Parkash Chautala owns one palatial double storeyed farm house totally air conditioned built on one acre land situated in village Teja Khera and the cost of his farm house is more than Rs. 50 lacs. The petitioner also owns bank building worth Rs. 4 lacs in village Chautala in which the Sirsa Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Chautala is situated. He also owns 200 acres of canal irrigated agricultural land in village Lambi and he got the sale-deed of this registered at a low price in the names of his sons and cousins to deprive the State treasury of the stamp duty. He showed the sale price of this land much lower than the prescribed rate of the Collec
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
