M A I N   N E W S

Dangi’s bail petition rejected
Jatinder Sharma

Rohtak, May 14
The Special Judge, Mr Shiva Sharma, today rejected the bail application of former Revenue Minister and Congress leader Anand Singh Dangi who is facing charges under Sections 218, 406, 409, 418, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Rejecting the bail application, the Special Judge said: “Deprivation of liberty by deciding to enlarge an accused on bail is not for punitive purpose but to meet the bifocal ends of justice to the persons aggrieved and the society affected”.

Mr Dangi had sought bail on the ground that he was innocent and had been implicated in the case with the aid of Section 120-B, IPC, as he was the Revenue Minister during the period concerned. He said he had no role in the allotment in question and the allottees were in fact entitled to the land as earlier a cut had been imposed on their claims.

It was further stated that only four out of 12 files were alleged to have been seen by Mr Dangi and in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court and the high court, he had nothing to do with the determination of rights of the allottees regarding evacuee property and that he had been implicated due to his long-standing political enmity with the present Chief Minister and his son Ajay Chautala.

Another ground for bail was parity because Mr Dangi was in custody for the past more than three months and all co-accused, except one were already on bail. Mr Dangi had assured to comply with the conditions which might be imposed by the court while granting bail.

The case projected by the prosecution was that in FIR No. 3 dated April 8, 2000, 92 files of displaced persons from West Punjab (Pakistan were taken into possession by the police, out of which 23 files belonged to Sonepat and Rohtak districts. In nine cases of Ram Sharan, Suwar Ram, Jeewan Dass, Attar Chand, Hans Raj, Bihari Lal, Sant Lal, Bira Bai and Ram Gopal no cut was found to have been imposed and general attorney were found not related to either allottees or their heirs and the land was allotted on the basis of affidavits without verification.

Ram Kumar and Jai Narain, residents of Madina, the native village of Mr Dangi. The petitioner was alleged to have misused his official position by allotting over 112 acres, thereby causing a loss to the state exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees.

The public prosecutor said the claims of the allottees were passed without verification — in some cases even after the death of the original allottees. Four files were called for and seen by Mr Dangi establishing the pressure on the Rehabilitation Department for the allotment of land.

The Special Judge wanted to know if any cut was actually imposed in the case of the allotments in question. Answering the question, the prosecution said counsel for the petitioner was trying to prove the imposition of a cut by reasoning alone. “This argument is certainly a hypothetical one. There is nothing on record to show that the claimants in question were allotted land after the imposition of a cut”, he said.

The general attorney had made an application directly to Mr Dangi. That application was seen and forwarded to the Tehsildar (Sales) for necessary action on August 29, 1992. Some more applications were sent by Mr Dangi to the Tehsildar (Sales)/MO Chandigarh.