E-Paper
Panchkula: Court grants anticipatory bail to revenue officer in graft case
The court held that a disclosure statement, unless it leads to recovery or discovery of a fact, does not constitute substantive evidence.
A local court in Panchkula has granted interim anticipatory bail to Joginder Sharma, district revenue officer, in connection with an FIR registered by the state vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (ACB), Panchkula, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The FIR was registered on January 30. Initially, only Section 61(2) was invoked, but later Sections 238, 318, 336(3), and 340 were added. According to the prosecution, land in Shahpur, Raipur Rani—part of attached PGF/PACL properties per Supreme Court orders—was illegally sold on October 16, 2025, despite restraint entries in revenue records. It is alleged that accused public servants, along with private individuals including petitioner Joginder Sharma, facilitated the removal of stay entries and executed the sale in favour of Naveen, reportedly related to Sharma.
Subsequent mutations and resale followed. The prosecution further claimed that Sharma, with co-accused Vikram Singla, the then tehsildar of Raipur Rani, conspired to transfer the land, receiving ₹2.39 crore in cash and ₹5.74 crore via banking channels, necessitating custodial interrogation to trace the conspiracy and financial trail.
While passing the order, the court made significant observations regarding the material placed on record by the prosecution. It noted that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and was arrayed as an accused during the course of the investigation. The court observed that the primary basis for his implication appeared to be the disclosure statement of co-accused Vikram Singla.
The court held that a disclosure statement, unless it leads to recovery or discovery of a fact, does not constitute substantive evidence. In the present case, no recovery had been effected at the instance of the petitioner, nor had any independent material been produced at this stage to demonstrate his direct involvement in the alleged alteration of revenue entries or execution of the disputed sale deed.
It further observed that the alleged offence was predominantly documentary in nature and that the relevant records were already in the custody of the investigating agency. The petitioner was not shown to have held any official position that enabled him to manipulate the revenue record.
The court also remarked that the mere fact that the purchaser of the land is related to the petitioner, in the absence of prima facie material showing conscious participation, wrongful gain, or criminal intent, could not by itself be a sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Addressing the prosecution’s plea for custodial interrogation, the court stated that in cases where the evidence is documentary and already secured by the State, the necessity for custodial interrogation does not prima facie appear compelling. Granting interim relief, the court directed the petitioner to join the investigation on or before February 14. The matter has been listed for further arguments on February 17, and the investigating officer has been directed to appear on the next date of hearing along with a status report.
Advocate Deepanshu Bansal, representing Joginder Sharma, argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. He contended that allegations rely solely on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, which is not substantive evidence without any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
