2022 Supreme(P&H) 1447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Sadhu Singh Dharamsot & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 34718 of 2022 (O&M) and CRM-M No. 34487 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate and Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate, Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate and Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the Respondent.
The decision highlighted the importance of legal scrutiny and the debatable nature of evidence in granting bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Bail - Sections 7-A, 13(1)(a)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018) and Section 120-B IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of bribery and corruption against the petitioners, including a former Forest Minister, for permitting illegal activities such as felling of trees and illegal mining.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the petitioners was based on documentary evidence and the admissibility of those documents would be tested by the trial Court during trial. The court also noted that the complicity of the petitioners would remain debatable and subject to lawful consideration of the trial Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of documentary evidence, the alleged involvement of the petitioners in bribery and corruption, and the complicity of the petitioners in the illegal activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant regular bail was based on the lack of conclusive evidence and the debatable nature of the allegations against the petitioners. The court emphasized that the evidence would be subject to legal scrutiny during trial.
Final Decision: Both the petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to their furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order, CRM-M No.34718 of 2022 titled Sadhu Singh Dharamsot Vs. State of Punjab and CRM- M No.34487 of 2022 titled Daljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab are being disposed of.
2. Prayer in both the petitions is for grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.7 dated 06.06.2022 registered under Sections 7-A, 13(1)(a)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018) and Section 120-B IPC at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flaying Squad 1, District SAS Nagar Mohali.
3. Petitioner Sadhu Singh Dharamsot belongs to political strata.
4. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of Harvinder Pal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bureau, Unit SAS Nagar. During investigation of FIR No.6 dated 02.06.2022 under Sections 7, 7-A of the PC Act as amended by P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018 and under Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Punjab at Mohali, accused Harmohinder Singh, Contractor, Forest Department made a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that since 2017 till date, whatever bribe was being paid from time to time to the senior officers of Forest Department and political persons and their aides, he had maintained a diary, which was concealed by him in the basement of his residential house. He could get the diary recovered by identifying the place. On the basis of aforesaid statement of Harmohinder Singh, diary was recovered and facts in detail were came to be known in respect of bribery paid to the Forest Department and political persons and their aides. The diary allegedly has the details of felling of khair trees, transfer of officers, amount of bribe allegedly paid to petitioner Sadhu Singh Dharamsot (Former Minister), regarding Amit Chauhan, regarding issuance of NOC, regarding purchase of tree guards, embezzlement in plantation drive, forgery in fake expenses of fencing, leveling of hill area in Mohali District and regarding mining.
5. During investigation, it was revealed that Harmohinder Singh since about 10 years was involved in contract-ship for felling of khair treas. Earlier he had worked with different contractors on commission basis. Since about 5 years, he was working as contractor through his Firm Guri Har Associates. They carried out the work of khair trees from the month of October to March, for which, they had to take permit from Forest Department. In lieu of this work, bribe was received by the Forest Department from them. For one season, the accused used to get permits of felling of about 7000 trees and for this purpose, an amount of Rs.500/- per tree was being paid to petitioner Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, who was Former Minister of Forest Department, an amount of Rs.200/- was being paid to the Division Forest Officer, an amount of Rs.100/- was being paid to the Range officer, an amount of Rs.100/- was being paid to the Block Officer and an amount of Rs.100/- was being paid to the Forest Guard. In this way, an amount of Rs.1000/- was being paid for one tree and for 7000 trees, the amount came out to be Rs.70 lacs, which was being paid every year of season. About 15 contractors were involved in this business and they also had to pay in a similar manner. Non-payment of the aforesaid amount resulted in non-issuance of permit by the Forest Department and the contractor was being scared for imposition of heavy amount of penalty. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was being paid bribe of Rs.500/- per tree and this amount was being collected by Kamaljit Singh, resident of Khanna, who is journalist of newspaper "Jagbani". This person has got the security of Punjab police. During investigation, it was further revealed that Amit Chauhan, Division Forest Officer was posted at Rupnagar. During this period, Harmohinder Singh got issued permits of felling of 1160 trees at Badiali Kalan Sub Division Anandpur Sahib from Amit Chauhan. For this purpose, he gave bribe of Rs.5,80,