Bribe for CLU: In BJP MLA's case, sting operator came under Hisar court scanner

Dharmender Kuhar, who filmed Haryana Congress president Rao Narender Singh and MLAs allegedly demanding bribe for obtaining permission for change in land use (CLU) and effected chargesheets against four of them in the past few days, had come under a Hisar court's scanner in Hansi BJP MLA Vinod Bhayana's case.

Even though the Haryana Lokayukta had ordered an FIR against Bhayana along with others in the CLU scam, the Hisar court recently criticised Kuhar following his attempt to make the BJP MLA an accused in the case.

What judge observed

Complainant laid out the entrapment himself, offering to pay bribe to seek favour

Inconsistent statements on sting operation; initially said 2014, in cross-examination 2011

Handing over videos to INLD raised questions about motives

Bhayana was a Chief Parliamentary Secretary in the Congress government when Kuhar conducted the sting operation. Later, he joined the BJP. The State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV&ACB) never pursued the case against Bhayana and has now filed chargesheets against four Congress leaders -- Rao Narender, Naresh Selval, Jarnail Singh and Ram Niwas Ghorela.

Kuhar had moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for summoning Bhayana as an accused in the ongoing trial in the CLU scam. He had alleged that the Haryana Lokayukta's had duly mentioned a direct conversation between Bhayana, his acquaintance Bhuvnesh Allawadi and him.

Kuhar had testified that the deal was settled at Rs. 2.5 crore for CLU with Allawadi, who is facing trial in the case. After perusing the CD made by Kuhar, the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Saurabh Khatri had observed that the complainant laid out the entrapment himself, offering to pay a bribe to seek favour from Bhayana to obtain the CLU permission. “The same is clear from the words said by Dharmender Kuhar... ‘vo to ho jayega, badia hai sir, uska bata de aap jesa jo hoga kar lenge’. Prior to the said words... there was no demand for any bribe by Vinod Bhayana…,” said the court, while dismissing the application.

It added, “It appears that in his overzealousness, complainant himself originated a criminal design and implanted a disposition to commit a criminal act and then induced the commission of the alleged offence so that Vinod Bhayana could be prosecuted.”

The court had further observed, in its order dated September 6, that neither in the FIR nor in any of his statements nor even in his evidence before the court, Kuhar had disclosed the date on which he allegedly conducted the sting operation in question. Initially, he had mentioned that he had conducted the sting operation in 2014. However, during his cross examination in the court, he said he did the operation in 2011.

“But there is no explanation as to why complainant did not immediately bring the result of his sting operation before the police authorities with promptness,” the court commented, and added that it “raised serious doubts as to why there was a delay of around five years in registration of present FIR in the year 2016.”

On Kuhar handing over videos to INLD, the judge said, “It raises question as to whether the sting operation claimed by complainant to have been conducted in the large public interest, was rather conducted in furtherance of any political propagation.”