E-Paper
High court seeks Haryana’s response on IAS officer Dahiya’s plea
The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought a response from the Haryana government on a plea by IAS officer Vijay Singh Dahiya seeking anticipatory bail in a corruption case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). Dahiya was named in the FIR after the arrest of a woman who allegedly acted as a facilitator to get bills cleared in lieu of money collected on the behalf of the IAS officer.
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday sought response from the Haryana government on a plea by IAS officer Vijay Singh Dahiya seeking anticipatory bail in a corruption case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
The high court bench of justice Gurvinder Singh Gill has sought response by May 24.
Dahiya, who was posted as the commissioner, Haryana Skill Development Department, Panchkula, was named in the FIR on April 20 after the arrest of a woman, who allegedly acted as a facilitator to get bills cleared in lieu of money collected on the behalf of the IAS officer. A case under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 384 and 120B of the IPC was registered on April 20 this year on the complaint of one Rinku Manchanda of Fatehabad, who had claimed that he was running an educational institution and imparting training of computer, AC technician and beauty parlour. For the said work, the Haryana Skill Development Department had to pay bills amounting to ₹50 lakh to him and ₹5 lakh was being demanded to clear these bills. At least ₹2 lakh was recovered from the woman by the ACB, when she was caught.
Dahiya has claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case due to “motivated considerations”.
The plea claimed that a trap was laid for the woman and the petitioner had nothing to do with the same. She was then asked to contact the petitioner under a second trap before she was taken to a café in Chandigarh, the plea claimed, adding that she met him, but the ACB’s attempt to implicate him miserably failed, the plea claimed.
“In fact, the petitioner has been implicated merely for the reason that he is known to co-accused Poonam Chopra and by manipulating this acquaintance, the prosecution attempted to concoct a story that the petitioner is also an accused in the case,” the plea argued.
A Panchkula court had dismissed his anticipatory bail plea on May 3 observing that prima facie there appeared “active complicity” of Dahiya in the alleged offences.
