The court denied anticipatory bail, emphasizing the serious nature of economic offences and the necessity for custodial interrogation to investigate allegations of inflated land valuations and conspiracy to defraud the state.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. 

Apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, the petitioner, who in the year 2015-2016 was posted as Patwari in village Singriwal and allegedly showed inflated rates to help the land owners to get higher compensation from Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, headed by Anand Sagar Sharma, who was the Kingpin, had come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

2. On 09.01.2024, on the extreme resistance by the State's counsel, this Court did not grant interim bail to the petitioner but stayed his arrest, and the said interim order is continuing to date.

3. The facts of the case are being taken from the reply dated 14.02.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:

1. That it is pertinent to mention here that the FIR No. 01 dated 10.02.2017, registered Under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Punjab, Vigilance Bureau Ludhiana was initially registered after Vigilance enquiry no. 09/2016 Jalandhar. Earlier 13 accused were nominated in this FIR and the role played by other 15 suspects was to be investigated. Thereafter, during the course of investigation a SIT was constituted to investigate the said matter by the then Chief Director Vigilance Bureau Punjab vide its office order dated 25.05.2018. The said SIT investigated the matter and filed cancellation report before the Hon'ble Special Court of Dr. Ajit Attri, Ludhiana on 13.06.2019.

2. That the Hon'ble Special Court of Dr. Ajit Attri, Ludhiana had directed to further investigate the said FIR vide its order dated 05.04.2022. That as per the direction of this Hon'ble court the case was further investigated especially in the light of following 13 points.

a) Whether any permission was sought from the Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur/administration prior to publication of notification no.3-A for the development of the colonies or not and what is the exact time of the development of colony if any?

b) Whether the proper procedure for the change in the nature of the land has been followed before issuance of the variation certificates and when the change in the nature of land was applied in each such case and when the necessary procedure was followed in each case of change of the nature of the land? Whether owner of the land moved any written application before the SDM with regard to change in nature of the land or not and whether these application were entered in the diary by assigning the numbers? Apart from this, whether the nature of the land could be changed after publication of the notification 3-A. 3-D, 3G or not and if it was possible, then what procedure was to be adopted for this purpose? In how many cases the nature of the land is changed after the notification 3A, 3-D and 3G?

c) Whether the land in question has been sold or purchased after publication of notification no.3-A and subsequent notifications in pursuance to some conspiracy by the accused? The number of the sale deeds executed and registered immediately before and after the issuance of the notification/s, the market rate of the area prior to those sale deeds and the market rate of the area after the issuance of the notifications?

d) In how many cases the applications for the change in the nature of the land were received, in how many cases such application were allowed and in how many cases the applications were not allowed? The entire process followed for the change of the nature of the land?

e) To what extent the amount of compensation was increased on change of nature of the land on sale/purchase of land in question after the publication of notification no.3-A?

f) On what basis, th