Liberty yes, but one can’t subvert justice: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to man in Rs 1.89 crore public funds ‘scam’

The order added that the process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner that is equitable and when the fair petitioner-accused chooses to employ irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed at proceedings/investigation, it is tantamount to an abuse of the process of justice.

ICDP scam allegations

• The case, registered as First Information Report (FIR) No. 06 at ACB Police Station, Ambala, involves serious charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to fraud and misappropriation of public funds.
• The investigation revealed a well-planned conspiracy wherein bribes were paid by a contractor, Stalian Jit, to Jitender Kaushik (then General Manager, ICDP, Kaithal) to secure government works.
• The prosecution alleged that Rs 1.89 crore in government works were allotted without proper tender processes.
• While bills were raised for standard materials, investigations and expert reports indicated that sub-standard materials were actually supplied.

Role of the petitioner

• Suresh Kumar served as an accountant at ICDP, Kaithal, and was a member of the Project Implementation Team (PIT).
• The state contended that Kumar facilitated the conspiracy by processing and signing financial documents, including quotations, vouchers, and bills linked to the fraudulent projects.
• Furthermore, it was alleged that illegal funds were transferred from companies controlled by the contractor directly into Kumar’s bank account.

Arguments for bail and parity

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Samay Singh Sandhawalia argued that his role was strictly limited to maintaining accounts in the ordinary course of official duty and that he had no decision-making power regarding contract allotments.
• He emphasised that the prosecution has incorrectly alleged that an amount of Rs 7.50 lakh was transferred into the bank account of the petitioner, but in fact only an amount of Rs 50,000 was transferred into the account of the petitioner.
• According to him, the said amount cannot by itself be treated as illegal gratification, and the same requires proper investigation and verification.

Findings

• While a second or successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable in law, the petitioner is essentially required to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances rather than mere superficial changes.
• The petitioner failed to point out any material change in facts or new grounds that had arisen since the dismissal of his first petition on January 12, 2026.
• The allegations are serious and pertain to a well-planned conspiracy involving the misappropriation of public funds and corruption.
• The investigation revealed that approximately Rs 1.89 crore in government works were allotted to companies controlled by a contractor without following the prescribed tender procedures.
• Furthermore, while bills were raised for standard quality materials, expert reports indicated that sub-standard materials were actually supplied.
• The petitioner, an accountant and member of the PIT, was not merely a passive employee but actively facilitated the conspiracy by processing and signing financial documents, including quotations and vouchers.
• The plea of parity with the co-accused, who has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, also does not advance the case of the petitioner, as the rule of parity is not to be applied mechanically.
• The role attributed to each accused and other attending circumstances are required to be considered while deciding the plea for the grant of bail.

• It is a trite law that the grant of bail to a co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to the same relief.
• The prolonged evasion of the petitioner from the process of law weighs heavily against the exercise of discretion in his favour under the provisions governing anticipatory bail.
• The petitioner had deliberately evaded the process of law for over two months.
• The conduct of the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this second petition.
• Protracted absence, eluding the process of law and abrupt repetition of pleas for pre-arrest bail, in the absence of convincing reason(s), is certainly not an act/behaviour which calls for sympathy/indulgence of the court.
• The hiatus of more than two months is inexplicable to the point of indicating wilful disobedience to authority.
• The conduct of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of allegations made against the petitioner disentitles him from the grant of anticipatory bail.
• No fresh substantial change in circumstances has been brought forward, which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to maintain his second petition for the grant of pre-arrest bail.