HIGHLIGHTS OF PETITON OPPOSING BAIL OF FORMER HARYANA MINISTER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Sukhbir Kataria                                                                       ----Petitioner

//Versus//

State of Haryana                                                                     ---Respondent

1. That the Petitioner/Accused; the Former Minister, Haryana Govt., is involved most heinous offences of hampering the growth of a healthy democracy, which is the basic feature of the country's constitutional set up, by polluting the election process, by means of large scale impersonation, mass bogus voting, massive fabrication and forgery of documents, for creating thousands fake voter cards, with the ultimate aim of hijacking the democracy.

LIST OF CASES AGAINST THE PETITIONER:

i.     More than 25 FIRs; under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC read with Section 31 of Presentation of the People Act, 1950, are pending investigation with the Investigation Agency SIT.

ii.   More than 300 complaints for creating mass bogus votes; with the aid of forged and fake documents, are pending enquiry with the SIT.

iii. In more than 15 cases, the Trial Court, finding prima-facie evidence, for commission of similar election related offences, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, has summoned the Petitioner/accused to face the Trial.

2. That just to demonstrate the past conduct of the Petitioner; he was accused in the below mentioned cases:

(i)           FIR No. 493/22.07.87, vide DD No. 37/22.7.87, under Section – 376, 366, 368 IPC, for Kidnapping a newly engaged girl, waiting to be get married soon and then committing Gang Rape, just before the eyes of her would-be-husband.

(ii)         In FIR No. 727/2002, dated 03.10.2002, PS–City Gurgaon, court framed charges on 27.04.2007, u/s  447/427/506/149 IPC for forming unlawful assembly  the common object of:

Ø  Committing criminal trespass.

Ø  Committing mischief of causing loss/damage to property.

Ø  Intimidation by threatening.

(iii)       In FIR No. 325/09.06.2005, PS: City Gurgaon, the Ld. Trial Court framed charge u/s 379, for committing Theft.

(iv)        The FIR No. 253/23.04.2013, PS: City Gurgaon, u/s – 295, 452, 323, 324, 506, 357, 188, 148, 149, 120-B IPC was registered, for forming unlawful assembly with the object of:

Ø  Voluntarily causing injury by dangerous weapons.

Ø  Injuring & defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion.

Ø  House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.

Ø  Using criminal force in attempt to wrongfully confine a person.

Ø  Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.

(v)          The Trial Court on a Criminal Complaint No. 259/31.10.2002/03, on 08.06.2004 took cognisance of offences u/s 323/506:

Ø  For causing injury

Ø  Intimidation by threat to the victim.

Therefore, this Hon’ble Court may gauge the disastrous consequence of granting exceptional concession of Anticipatory Bail, which will be at the risk of impeding and hampering the ongoing Investigation by the SIT, in the way of use of influence, destruction of evidence, threat to witnesses, tutoring the co-accused not to make any statement against him etc., last but not least.

3. That the Petitioner/Accused has been misusing the concession of anticipatory bail, by repeatedly violating the conditions of bail, as instances given below:-

(i)                 By terrorising the witness/informant, through below mentioned means:

Ø  Hurling insults, through professional goons, in the way of stalking, making indecent slap on back and indecent gestures towards the young daughter of the Informant/Petitioner

Ø  By sending men for damaging his car.

Ø  Pelting stones in house.

Ø  Getting registered false case against the wife of the Petitioner etc.

(ii)               By not making himself available for interrogation by the Investigation Agency.

(iii)             By not cooperating with the Investigation Agency.

(iv)             By instigating the co-accused to make wrong statements about the residence address, which is recorded in the CD, the same may provided if this Hon’ble Court permits.

(v)               By beating the Driver of Informant/Applicant. In this regard, the Informant/Applicant had to file a complaint dated 02.04.2013 before the concerned court for beating his driver and a friend, by the close relatives of the Petitioner/Accused, by dragging them inside the house of present Petitioner/Accused. Due to paucity of time the complaint couldn’t be translated into English, therefore, the same will be produced before the Hon’ble Court, in the course of arguments.

All the supporting evidence in reference to the above submissions would be produced at the time arguments, if so directed by the Hon’ble Court.

4. That the leading electronic media telecasted a video clip, in which the Petitioner/Accused is seen touching the feet of one Prosecution Witness Sunita; pleading to forgive him and not to depose against him in court. Such act clearly amounts to direct inducement to a witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, which is the paramount misuse of the concession of Anticipatory Bail granted to accused. The Informant/Applicant will produce the video clip before the Hon’ble Court, if so directed.
5. That vide letter dated 06.06.2015 the Informant/Applicant provided a CD to the Commissioner of Police, in which the Petitioner/Accused and his wife Ritu is heard making direct inducement to a co-accused Krishan to destroy evidence and to make false statement before the SIT, regarding his fake residential address. Due to paucity of time the aforesaid letter dated 06.06.2015 couldn’t be translated into English, therefore, the same will be produced before the Hon’ble Court, in the course of arguments.
6. That vide letter dated 03.07.2015 the Informant/Applicant informed the Trail Court that the present Petitioner/Accused along with several persons visited his house and offered the amount Rs. 10 Crore, for not perusing the cases. And, when the Informant/Applicant refused to accept the offer of the Accused and asked him to immediately get out of his house, on this, the Petitioner/accused threatened the Informant/Accused to face dire consequences. The Informant/Applicant also attached the photographs in which the present Petitioner/accused is seen making visits to the witnesses’ houses and inducing them not to make any statement against him. The Informant/accused also attached a CD with the letter to substantiate the fact of inducement by the present Petitioner/accused to the witnesses. Due to paucity of time the aforesaid letter dated 03.07.2015 couldn’t be translated into English, therefore, the Informant/Applicant undertakes to produce the same before the Hon’ble Court, in the course of arguments.
7. That the creation of fake/bogus votes of such a huge quantum by the Petitioner/Accused is not possible without the active aid and cooperation of the other actors involved in the conspiracy. But due to the non-cooperation of the Petitioner/accused with the Investigation Agency the other unknown actors and out of net. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the accused is essential to unearth the deep rooted conspiracy to hijack the democracy. In this regard, the reply of the Election Department is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1.
8. That in a FIR No. 952 dated 14.11.2013, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, the HALAT MUKDMA, the Investigating Agency informed the Trial Court that the Petitioner/accused did not at all cooperated with Investing Agency and did answer satisfactorily about the creation the numerous bogus votes, by fabricating the fake and forged documents of people residing outside the State of Haryana. And one co-accused the resident of Delhi during investigation disclosed that he is not aware who created his bogus vote, by fabricating fake IDs in their name. In this regard, the true translated copy of the Police Report is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2.
9. That the he former Delhi Mayor Sarita Chaudhary has her name in the Gurgaon voters list, claiming herself to be a resident of house number 1407, 8 Biswa, in Gurgaon. A total of 81 votes were made on the said address ID but information collected through RTI revealed house number 1407 is a vacant plot and no one is living there.
10. That even the Form-6 meant for creating Voter Card, which is legally supposed to be filled up in the handwriting of the voter, but the same has been filled up by the Petitioner/accused and this fact is admitted by him reply to the written questionnaire given by the Investing Agency. The admitted fact of filling up of the Forms of different persons is clearly depicted in the ANNEXURE P-3 and P-4. 
11. That the Informant/Applicant also obtained the the Handwriting Expert Report dated 16.12.2011 and the handwriting expert has given clear report the numerous forms for different people are indeed in the handwriting of the Petitioner/Accused. The true copy of the handwriting expert dated 16.12.2011 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-5.
12. That there are numerous judgments of this Hon’ble Court, wherein this Hon’ble Court declined the concession of Anticipatory Bail to the persons; involved in petty offence having trappings of civil dispute. Numerous persons are languishing in jails even for commission of petty offences; who don’t get even the relief of regular bail; after spending consideration period behind the bars. Here, the Petitioner/accused by boasting to be a Former Minister can not have special privilege while dealing with the accused, rather the test should become more stringent, as the Minister is a public representative and he is expected to above any trace of suspicion.
13. he present accused, with the history of FIRs, for alleged involvement in Gang Rape, Theft, Causing injury with dangerous weapons, House-Trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, using criminal force in attempt to wrongfully confine a person, Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant, Injuring & defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion etc. 
14. Such Petitioner/Accused throws an open challenge to the very basic foundation of Indian Democracy; in the Constitutional set up. Therefore, the crying questions is: Whether, for the purpose of granting exceptional privilege of immunity from arrest, such an Accused deserves to be put on privileged footing than the other citizens involved in the offences of lesser degree, put behind bars by implication of decisions in ANNEXURE P-6 to P-23 ?  
15. Any sort of privilege, like immunity from arrest, would lead to heart burn among the citizens, reinforcing the belief that there is one law for the elite and one for the poor. And, further, it will cement the dangerous belief among under-privileged citizens that that the scales of justice get tilted when we have a rich and powerful Accused. 
16. That only because the Petitioner/Accused is rich and powerful FORMER STATE MINISTER, he can not be placed on higher pedestal than a co-accused poor lady Anita Sharma, a BLOCK LEVEL OFFICER, who was arrested and sent to Judicial Custody by the Trial Court. Whereas, she was just a small link in the larger conspiracy hatched for the benefit the present Petitioner/accused, for winning elections.
17. That the rule of law commits us to the principle that the law should be the same for everyone: one law for all and no exceptions. It would be quite repugnant; if there were one law for the rich and another for the poor. Any classification based on status; while delivering justice, disfigure, or at least pose great challenge to our commitment to the rule of law ideal
18.  That the Informant/Applicant vide letter dated 30.07.2013 had informed the Commissioner of Police about the damage of his car and other harassment at the instance of the Petitioner/Accused. The true copy of the letter dated 30.07.2013 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-24. 
19. That That the Constitution of India proclaims that India is a Sovereign Democratic Republic, and, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, democracy being the basic feature of the country's constitutional set up, free and fair elections to Parliament and State Legislatures alone would guarantee the growth of a healthy democracy in the country. And, the fair elections not only require that the electors should be free to exercise their votes in favour of the candidates of their choice according to their own free will, but also make it a pre-condition for a clean election that the real and true voters exercise their franchise and their right to vote is not defeated by unscrupulous and anti-social elements by resorting to impersonation or bogus voting. 
20. That the concession of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/accused, the ultimate beneficiary of the whole electoral fraud, would lead to interfering, impeding and stifling of  the investigation at the infancy stage of Investigation. 
21. That the Investigation Agency will never be able lay it hands on the evidence and other unknown conspirators, without the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner/accused.                                (PARDEEP KUMAR RAPRIA
        ADVOCATE
                                                   COUNSEL FOR THE INFORMANT/APPLICANT