HC dismisses Hooda's plea for trial proceedings postponement in Manesar land deal matter

Chandigarh, Nov 7 (PTI) The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda's plea seeking postponement of trial proceedings in the decade-old Manesar land deal case.

Hooda, who was Haryana chief minister between 2005-2014, had sought quashing of the Panchkula CBI court's September 19 order dismissing his application for postponing the process of framing of charges.

The CBI court had fixed the date for the process of framing of charges from October 30, but Hooda had challenged the trial court order in the high court.

Over seven years ago, Hooda and 33 others had been named in a charge sheet by the CBI in a case of alleged corruption in Manesar land deals worth over Rs 1,500 crore, in which around 200 farmers were allegedly cheated.

The CBI had filed the charge sheet against Hooda and 33 others, including two retired IAS officers, at a special CBI court in Haryana's Panchkula under IPC sections related to criminal conspiracy and cheating and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Meanwhile, the high court rejected Hooda's argument that since the apex court had stayed the proceedings against several co-accused in the same conspiracy case the trial could not proceed.

In his order, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya observed, "... The stay of trial against the co-accused (by the apex court) cannot be a ground to postpone the trial against the petitioner (Hooda) as well, since despite this stay charge can be framed and evidence can be recorded.

"He is not accused of the offence of conspiracy alone, other offences under the IPC and the PC Act are also there." When asked for a comment on the high court dismissing his plea, Hooda said "the matter is subjudice", adding he has complete faith in the judiciary.

Hooda had filed the application before the trial court for postponement of proceedings primarily on the ground that due to the stay the charges cannot be framed against him alone as all of them are accused of conspiracy on the same set of allegations.

The high court judge observed that the contention by one of Hooda's counsels that in the absence of co-conspirators -” as trial qua them has been stayed -” the petitioner (Hooda) cannot be charged for conspiracy, is without substance.

"It is because the petitioner himself has not challenged the (trial court) order, dated 01.12.2020, declining his application for discharge. It has attained finality qua him, leaving no option with the trial court but to frame the charge.

"He cannot be permitted to impede the obvious outcome of that order by alluding to an interim order of stay granted in favour of the co-accused. His attempt to do so is imprudent and clearly an afterthought as he has accepted the order directing framing of charge against him, dated 01.12.2020," the bench said.

"Besides, stay of trial against the co-accused cannot be a ground to postpone the trial against the petitioner as well... In case the SLPs against the co-accused are to be finally dismissed, they can be charged separately and evidence can then be taken against them; and in case their SLPs are to be allowed, it will have consequence only for the offence of conspiracy so far as the petitioner is concerned.

"Accordingly, framing of charge and proceeding with the trial will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner," the court held.

It was alleged that Hooda, as chief minister, and some other senior functionaries of the state government, in conspiracy with each other and other co-accused, deliberately allowed acquisition proceedings of the land at Manesar to lapse by ensuring that the award determining compensation is not passed within the statutorily prescribed period.

The court was told that as per the allegations in the case before that the land owners were forced to sell their land holdings in panic on the threat of acquisition by the government for public purposes, and after abandonment of the acquisition proceedings, various licences and permissions for change of land use were issued to ineligible builders/applicants.

This caused huge loss to the state exchequer as well as the land owners, and wrongful gain to private builders or entities/accused. PTI SUN VSD ZMN