E-Paper
Eight months on, Bathinda municipal official booked in DA case eludes arrest
As per official information, Butter’s anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Supreme Court on May 16 this year but despite that the VB has not been able to carry out his custodial questioning.
Eight months after the vigilance bureau (VB) booked an executive engineer (XEN) posted in Bathinda municipal corporation (MC) in a disproportionate assets (DA) case, the accused, Gurpreet Singh Butter, continues to elude arrest.
As per official information, Butter’s anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Supreme Court on May 16 this year but despite that the VB has not been able to carry out his custodial questioning.
Posted as municipal town planner (MTP) in Bathinda, Butter, who has been suspended from the local urban development department, is considered close to politicians across the party lines.
On February 27, he was booked by the VB’s Bathinda range under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. He was charged with amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
As per the VB, a probe had revealed that said Butter had purchased multiple properties and made fixed deposits in various banks and post offices amounting to over ₹1.83 crore, which was 92% more than his legitimate income.
Both Bathinda district court and Punjab and Haryana high court had rejected his anticipatory bail pleas while the SC had dismissed his special leave petition (SLP).
Interestingly, after the apex court refused to give any relief to the accused in May, VB changed the investigating officer even as the accused has not been arrested.
Earlier, the case was handled by a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Kuldeep Singh but later, the matter was given to DSP Sandeep Singh. DSP Sandeep confirmed on Sunday that VB is yet to arrest Butter. He, however, refrained from sharing any further detail.
Those in the know of the matter said that the vigilance had gone through the accused’s financial records from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2023 and found that the applicant had an income of ₹2.1 crore but he had spent ₹3.87 crore for purchasing movable and immovable properties in his own name and in the name of his family members.
“Thus, there was disproportionate income to the tune of ₹1.85 crore which was 92% excess of his known sources of income. During inquiry, the vigilance also found that entries were made in the account of the applicant’s mother through a commission agent Vikram Singh. Based on the said inquiry report, a formal FIR under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered,” reads a statement of the VB submitted before the Bathinda court in March while opposing a bail plea forwarded by the accused official.
Special judge, Bathinda, Rajiv Kalra dismissed Butter’s bail application on March 12 ,“The custodial interrogation of the applicant appears to be requisite to facilitate the VB to conclude the investigation.”
Challenging the lower court’s decision, Butter’s lawyer Vinod Ghai filed a bail petition before HC on March 21 stating that the VB probe was “arbitrary, selective, and skewed.”
The petition in HC stated that VB reduced the check period to April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2023, effectively excluding an entire financial year from consideration.
“This selective truncation has been deliberately done to misrepresent his financial position and create an artificial disparity between his income and assets,” claimed Butter’s counsel in the court.
Countering the charges and demanding Butter’s custodial interrogation, the state counsel had asserted that the petitioner had failed to provide complete records of his expenditures for the financial year 2013-14.
“Petitioner and his wife intentionally omitted to disclose certain properties, including a farm house, which features amenities such as a gym, swimming pool, and restaurant. The petitioner also failed to fully disclose his ancestral property holdings. While the family of the petitioner claimed to own ancestral land measuring 8 to 10 acres, the revenue records indicate that their ancestral holdings were only 30 kanals 14 marlas,” the state counsel had stated in the HC.
It further stated that Butter did not declare his agricultural income in his income tax returns, despite claiming to have ancestral land and taking additional land on lease.
Furthermore, the petitioner intentionally concealed the purchase of a luxury vehicle Fortuner.
In her order passed in HC on April 4, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul dismissed his bail plea citing the “gravity of allegations”. “Apprehension that the petitioner may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, cannot be ruled out at this stage,” Justice Kaul observed.
Hearing Butter’s SLP on May 16, a double bench of the SC comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prasanna B Varale dismissed the plea stating “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the high court.”
