HC rejects Bhupinder Hooda’s plea to halt Manesar trial

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday dismissed the plea of Bhupinder Singh Hooda, a former CM, claiming that the trial in the Manesar land case could not proceed against him alone as proceedings against the co-accused had been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that, “The stay of trial against the co-accused cannot be a ground to postpone the trial against the petitioner 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.”

Hooda was seeking quashing of orders dated September 19 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, rejecting his prayer to postpone the proceedings. The Bench was told that the Special Judge had fixed the case for framing of charges in the case registered on September 15, 2015, for cheating and other offences under Sections 420, 471, 120-B, IPC, and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Petitioner’s argument rejected

Senior counsel for Hooda contended that the allegations pertained to a single transaction involving all co-conspirators. As such, the trial could not proceed piecemeal. “As the trial against co-conspirators has already been stayed, charge cannot be framed against the petitioner alone, nor can the trial proceed. The evidence against all these accused is common, and none of the witnesses can be examined in the absence of either of them,” it was argued.

Rejecting it, the court said: “The contention that in the absence of co-conspirators—as trial qua them has been stayed—the petitioner cannot be charged for conspiracy, is without substance. It is because the petitioner himself has not challenged the order, dated December 1, 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 December 1, 2020.”

The court said the pending stay in favour of the co-accused could not delay proceedings against others. “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.”

Allegations in the case

The court was told that Hooda, the then CM, along with senior officers—Principal Secretary to CM; Additional Principal Secretary to CM; Director, Town and Country Planning Department, and District Town Planner (HQ)—was accused of allowing land acquisition proceedings in Manesar to lapse by ensuring that the award determining compensation was not passed within the statutory period.

It was alleged: “Before that the landowners were forced to sell their landholdings 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/entities/accused.”