E-Paper
Mohali court rejects forests officer’s contention against vigilance arrested
The additional district and sessions judge Parminder Singh Grewal rejected the contention and dismissed the bail application of the forest service officer, who is under arrest from July 7, 2022, to date. The judge wrote in his order that since the investigation was incomplete, the benefit of bail could not be granted to Chauhan.
Refusing to accept the contention of Indian Forest Service officer Vishal Chauhan that the vigilance bureau (VB) had no powers to arrest him in a case of corruption, the court of additional district and sessions judge, Mohali, on Monday dismissed his bail plea.
Chauhan said it was mandatory for the VB to take prior sanction from the Union government as required under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which it did not take. Hence, he is entitled to regular bail.
The additional district and sessions judge Parminder Singh Grewal rejected the contention and dismissed the bail application of the forest service officer, who is under arrest from July 7, 2022, to date. The judge wrote in his order that since the investigation was incomplete, the benefit of bail could not be granted to Chauhan.
The public prosecutor appearing for VB argued that Section 17-A of the PC Act is only for the benefit of a civil servant who in the bonafide discharge of his official duties, makes an error of judgment. This Section does not provide protection to those who demand a bribe and knowingly allow an illegal act.
The case pertains to bungling worth crores of rupees done by the former minister (forests) Sadhu Singh Dharamsot, a district forest officer (DFO), a journalist, and a contractor. All were arrested in June. The bail applications of the minister and the DFO were dismissed by the same court earlier.
Paras Talwar, counsel for Chauhan, argued that the VB was required to take permission from the appointing authority ie. the Union Government before arresting his client. A departmental inquiry was also mandatory that was not conducted. Chauhan was not heard either, before his arrest though he had joined investigations.
Advocate Paras Talwar maintains that the mere disclosure made by an accused DFO against the conservator of forests cannot be taken as evidence to arrest him.
Chauhan’s name did not appear in the FIR registered on June 2, 2022, as the complainant, Davinder Sandhu did not allege anything against him. The DFO had told VB that he accepted ₹2 lakh on behalf of Chauhan for allowing illegal felling of trees, leveling of hillocks, and construction on the forest land in ‘Masol’ village, near Chandigarh.
