Here is why court clears way for Bhupinder Hooda's trial in Manesar land deal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s dismissal of former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s plea in the Manesar land case rests on a clear legal reasoning — that a stay of trial for co-accused does not freeze proceedings against another accused when there is no stay in his favour.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, while rejecting Hooda’s petition, clarified that the pendency of stay orders in favour of others cannot be used as a shield to stall a trial.

What Hooda had sought

Hooda had moved the High Court against the Special CBI Judge’s order dated September 19, which declined his plea to postpone proceedings in the CBI case registered in 2015. The trial court had fixed the matter for framing of charges in a cheating case registered under Sections 420, 471, 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

His senior counsel argued that the allegations against him and other senior officials pertained to a single conspiracy — the dropping of acquisition proceedings for land in Manesar. Since the Supreme Court had already stayed the trial against co-accused, it was contended that “charge cannot be framed against the petitioner alone, nor can the trial proceed” because the evidence and witnesses were common for all.

Why the High Court rejected this argument

Justice Dahiya found no merit in the contention that proceedings could not go ahead without the co-accused. The court noted that Hooda had already accepted an earlier order of December 1, 2020, by which his application for discharge had been declined.

Referring to the order, 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.”

The Bench described Hooda’s attempt to rely on the stay granted to others as “imprudent and clearly an afterthought,” observing that he could not “impede the obvious outcome of that order by alluding to an interim order of stay granted in favour of the co-accused.”

Court’s reasoning: Separate trials permissible

The High Court made it clear that the law did not prevent a trial from proceeding against one accused merely because others have secured interim relief. Justice Dahiya held: “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.”

The Bench clarified that any future development in the Supreme Court would only affect the conspiracy aspect of the case, not the other charges against Hooda. “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 examined

According to the prosecution, Hooda, then Chief Minister, along with senior officials, allegedly allowed land acquisition proceedings in Manesar to lapse deliberately by ensuring that the compensation award was not passed within the prescribed time.

The court recorded the allegations that: “Before that the land owners were forced to sell their land holdings in panic on the threat of acquisition by the government for public purposes, and after abandonment of the acquisition proceedings, various licenses 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.”

The bottom line

By holding that there existed no valid reason for adjournment under Section 346 BNSS, the High Court concluded that the trial against Hooda could proceed. Justice Dahiya summed up the ruling in a single line: “In view of the discussion, there is no merit in the petition and it stands dismissed.”

In essence, the High Court ruled that the absence of co-accused in trial could not stall proceedings against one accused, particularly when earlier judicial orders permitting framing of charges had already attained finality”.