HC rejects bail plea of accused, says no limit to human greed

Slug: Sec 37 property case

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 7

There is no limit to human greed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court asserted as it turned down the anticipatory bail plea filed by liquor contractor Arvind Singla in an alleged Sector 37 property fraud case.

In his detailed order, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal refused to accept the petitioner’s contention that he was a leading liquor contractor of the region and had bona fide invested the money at the behest of a property dealer.

“The petitioner may be a billionaire, but the investment made by him in the property does not appear bona fide and is certainly not for nation building or generating employment. It is for personal aggrandisement, as there is no limit to human greed,” Justice Grewal asserted.

Making it clear that his custodial interrogation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would be necessary, Justice Grewal observed that he was alleged to be the mastermind and instrumental in preparation of fake and forged documents for transfer of the property whereby he allegedly received more than Rs1 crore.

Going into the background of the matter, Justice Grewal added that the house was apparently allotted by the Chandigarh Administration to Santosh Mehta on leasehold basis pursuant to an auction. She was said to have expired in October 1986. The property after her death was stated to be in the possession of her husband Ved Parkash Mehta, who expired in 2017. After his death, the co-accused, along with one Surjit Bouncer, allegedly took forcible possession of the house. Surjit Bouncer preferred a civil suit on January 17, 2017, which was decreed the very next day as Rahul Mehta — Santosh Mehta’s son — allegedly appeared and admitted the tenancy. He was restrained from forcibly dispossessing plaintiff Surjit Bouncer from the suit property.

Justice Grewal added that Rahul Mehta was stated to be keeping “indifferent physical and mental health” and the accused allegedly took advantage. They kept him in a solitary confinement and he was allegedly administered intoxicating substances and kept in the state of delirium.

Justice Grewal also took note of the public prosecutor’s contentions that the petitioner actively connived with the co-accused and an agreement to sell was entered between Rahul Mehta and co-accused Khalendra Singh Kadyan.

Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Kadyan and invested for purchasing 33 per cent share, while 67 per cent remained with Kadyan. The petitioner transferred Rs27 lakh to the account of Rahul Mahajan, which was suspiciously opened in Catholic Syrian Bank.