Chandigarh ex-mayor Kuldeep Kumar gets interim bail ahead of MC election

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted interim anticipatory bail to former mayor and AAP councillor Kuldeep Kumar in a cheating case registered by the Chandigarh Police. Issuing notice of motion to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu also fixed February 6 as the next date of hearing.

“In the meanwhile, petitioner shall join investigation before the investigating officer, but he be not arrested till the next date of hearing,” Justice Sindhu asserted. The case had garnered considerable attention due to its timing just before the mayoral election.

After going through the FIR, Justice Sindhu asserted it transpired that the allegations precisely were regarding the transmission of Rs 75,000 to the account of one Rahul Chanaliya, stated to be the brother-in-law of present petitioner. The amount was allegedly transmitted through Google Pay by way of multiple transactions from September 10 to September 13 last year. But it was nowhere discernible that any amount was paid to the petitioner. Besides, the present FIR was registered on January 29, but “there is no explanation for delay of more than four months”.

This decision paved way for the AAP councillor to cast his vote in the mayoral election. Appearing before the bench, senior counsel Gurminder Singh with advocates Ferry Sofat, Kartik Sharma, Tarun Deora and Ashir Gulati argued during the course of hearing that the petitioner was innocent and falsely implicated in the case.

Despite repeated efforts, the FIR copy was not provided to the petitioner, who only learned about the case through media reports. The police and administration personnel in civil uniform visited the petitioner’s house with a malafide motive to arrest and prevent him from casting his vote in the election. The case had caused grave prejudice to the petitioner’s reputation and personal liberty.

Gurminder Singh added the brief facts which came to the petitioner’s notice through media reports was that the FIR was registered against the petitioner and his brother-in-law alleging that they had received Rs 75,000  for getting the complainant’s brother a job of a sweeper in a “private owned company under the municipal corporation”.