Om Parkash Soni v. State of Punjab

CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:133952o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH ooooo *** ooCRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) Dateoofodecisiono:o13.10.2023 OmoParkashoSoni ...oPetitionero Versus StateoofoPunjabo ...oRespondent CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoVIKASoBAHL Present:o Mr.oR.S.Rai,oSenioroAdvocateowitho Ms.oIshaoGoyal,oAdvocate, Mr.oR.P.oSaini,oAdvocate, Ms.oShivanioSaini,oAdvocate,o Mr.oFarazoKohli,oAdvocate,oand Mr.oAnuragoArora,oAdvocate forotheopetitioner. Mr.FerryoSofat,oAddl.A.G.oPunjab. VIKASoBAHL,oJ.(ORAL)

¶1This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.20 dated 09.07.2023 registered under Sections 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 atoPoliceoStationoVigilanceoBureau,oRangeoAmritsar,oDistrictoAmritsar. FACTUALoBACKGROUND:-

¶2Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.20 dated 09.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) was registered on the complaint of Varender Singh Sandhu, PPS under Section 13 (1)(b) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, against the present petitioner on the allegations that upon investigation of Vigilance Enquiry no. 8 dated 10.10.2022 against CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:133952o the petitioner, who was the former Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab, it was found that the income of the petitioner, his wife-Suman Soni and son-Raghav Soni for the check period starting from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022 was assessed as Rs. 4,52,18,771/- and the expenditure of the petitioner during the said period was assessed as Rs.12,48,42,692/- and thus, the present petitioner had spent an amount of Rs. 7,96,23,921/- more than his known sources of income and the same was found to be 176.8% of his income. The case was registered against the petitioner and it was stated in the said FIR that the role of the wife of the petitioner and his son would be considered during the course of investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2023. The challan/ final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had been prepared on 29.08.2023 and presented in the Court on 31.08.2023. As per the challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 along with the present petition, the details of the income of the petitioner, his wife and son for the check period from 01.04.2016 to

31.03.2022, under the heading "income chart" and the total amount of income of the petitioner, his wife and his son has been stated to be Rs.4,82,87,517/-The total expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son for the said check period has also been detailed in the "expenditure chart" given in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and as per the said "expenditure chart", the total amount of expenditure comes to Rs.14,91,86,253/-and thus, as per the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had spent an amount of Rs.10,08,98,735.78/-more than his income (208.95% more than the income). The petitioner had applied for the concession of regular bail before the Court of Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Amritsar on 12.09.2023 and the same was dismissed by PAWAN KUMAR the said Court vide order dated 21.09.2023 and thereafter the present CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:133952o petitionohasobeenofiled. ARGUMENTSo OFo LEARNEDo SENIORo COUNSELo FORo THE PETITIONER:-

¶3Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau on 09.07.2023 and the investigation in the present case is over and the challan/final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was prepared on 29.08.2023 and has been presented in the Court on 31.08.2023. It is further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the said documents are already in the custody of the Investigating Agency and that the witnesses sought to be produced in the present case are primarily Government officials/bank officials/Chartered Accountant. It is contended that there are 49 prosecution witnesses and since, the charges have not been framed as yet thus, the conclusionoofotrialoisolikelyotootakeotime.o

¶4Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that in the present case, a preliminary inquiry by the Vigilance Bureau was initiated against the petitioner vide Vigilance Enquiry No.8 dated

10.10.2022 and in the said vigilance inquiry, the petitioner had duly cooperated continuously for a period of eight months and the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer as and when he was called and had provided the documents which were sought from him and had thus, fully cooperated with the Investigating Agency. It is stated that the petitioner is 66 years of age (wrongly mentioned as 64 in para 10 of the petition) and has several medical ailments and a pace maker was implanted in his body in the year 2019 as he was diagnosed with Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (Stroke/paralysis) and thereafter, even in the year 2021, PAWAN KUMAR another pace maker was implanted in the body of the petitioner and all the CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:133952o surgeries of the petitioner were performed at Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai. It is also argued that the petitioner is also suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, Hypothyroidism and Hypertension on account of which he is required to take 25 tablets every day. It is argued that the ill health of the petitioner is further apparent from the fact that on 10.07.2023, when the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and was remanded to custody, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar was pleased to direct the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar to provide medical assistance as per the Jail Rules and thereafter, as per the direction of the Jail Superintendent, the petitioner was kept in Jail Hospital under medical supervision and was subsequently, shifted to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar on account of his deteriorating health and that recently, a Medical Board was constituted on 14.09.2023 and the said Medical Board was of the view that the petitioner needs placement of a third pacemaker in the left ventricle with CTVS backup. On the basis of the said report, the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar had referred the petitioner to PGI Chandigarh for further management and in support of the same, reference has been made to the documents annexed as Annexure P-7 (at Page 171 of the paper book). It is argued that while being taken to PGI Chandigarh, the health of the petitioner deteriorated and thus he was taken back to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar where he is presently admitted. Reference has also been made to the documents (Annexure P-6 and P-7) with respect to the medical condition of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and reference has been made to page 60 of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to show that even as per the said report, the petitioner has deep roots in society as he was Mayor of Municipal PAWAN KUMAR Corporation, Amritsar from the year 1991 to 1996 and thereafter, remained CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:133952o as MLA from the Vidhan Sabha, Halqa Amritsar (West) for the period commencing from 1997 to 2002, 2002 to 2007, 2007 to 2012 and MLA from Vidhan Sabha, Halqa Amritsar (Central) for the period 2012 to 2017, 2017 to 2022 and further remained as Cabinet Minister, Punjab from April 2018 to September 2021 and from September 2021 to March 2022 served as Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab and thus, the question of the petitioner fleeingofromotheocountryowouldonotoarise.

¶5Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several items of expenditure which have neither been incurred by the petitioner nor by his son or his wife, have been wrongly included in the expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son and on the said account, an amount of Rs.6,19,83,751/- has been wrongly added under the heading of expenditure and reference in this regard has been made to a detailed chart which has been reproduced in para 17 (page 18) of the petition and by making reference to the said detailed chart, it has been argued that the expenditure which has been wrongly included by the Investigating Agency is proved from the documents which have been annexed along with the present petition and specific reference of the same has been made in the said chart which contains 13 points highlighting the expenditure which has been wrongly included by the Investigating Agency. It is pointed out that in the expenditure chart, which has been reproduced in paragraph 17, 4 mistakes have occurred inasmuch as under point No.3, the amount under the heading "Amount of Variation" has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.3,98,317/- whereas the same should have been Rs.2,98,737/- and under point No.8, in the fourth column, instead of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, same is required to be mentioned as PAWAN KUMAR Rs.1,16,04,268/- although the amount which is sought to be deducted has CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 6 2023:PHHC:133952o been correctly mentioned and the benefit of Rs.41,852/- being claimed under point No.10 is not being claimed. It is also submitted that on account of the above, total amount has been wrongly stated to be Rs.6,21,25,183/- whereas the same should be Rs.6,19,83,751/- The corrected chart is handed over to the Court and the same is taken on record as Mark "B" and a copy of the same has been given to the learned State counsel. It has also been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that point Nos.15 to 19 have not been properly stated in the income chart and the same have been stated properly in the Chart Mark 'B' and for the purposes of arguments on behalf of the petitioner, point Nos.15 to 19 be taken into consideration from Mark 'B' and the amount of benefit claimed under point No.1 in the income chart be read as Rs.63,81,925/- (Mark 'B') and not Rs.65,31,925/- (as in para 16 of the petition) and the total income received be taken as Rs.4,57,28,135/- (Mark 'B') instead of Rs.4,59,88,135/- (as per parao16oofotheopetition).

¶6With respect to point No.1 of the above expenditure chart, it is argued that in the column of the amount deposited on completion of the check period by the petitioner in the Punjab National Bank, Amritsar, has been shown to be Rs.1,90,711/-, as per the challan whereas the said figure is Rs.1,26,744/- and in support of the same, bank statement has been annexed as Annexure P-54 and thus, an amount of Rs.63,967/- deserves to be deducted from the total expenditure. With respect to point No.2 of the expenditure chart, it has been argued that regarding the sale deed dated

12.06.2019 for buying plot measuring 11 kanals 11 marlas and 3 sarsai at village Sichander, District Amritsar, no amount has been paid by the petitioner and the payment has been made by Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni PAWAN KUMAR and yet, as per the challan, the payments of Rs.53,61,100/- and CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 7 2023:PHHC:133952o Rs.80,41,650/- have been shown to be the expenditure incurred by the petitioner. It is stated that the fact that Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni had paid the entire amount is apparent from a conjoint reading of Annexures P-55 to P-58 in which reference has been made to the cheques/bank statements and propertyodocuments.

¶7With respect to point No.3, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.2,98,737/- has been included in the expenditure of the petitioner and his son although, the entire sum was paid by the nephew of the petitioner from his known sources of income and for proving the same, reference has been madeotoobankostatementso(AnnexureoP-59)

¶8With respect to point No.4 it is submitted that the amount of Rs.4,29,18,213/- has been taken to be the expenses incurred by the petitioner and his son for the construction of the bungalow situated at D.R. Enclave, Village Heir Ajnala Road, Amritsar. It is argued that as is apparent from Annexure P-61 (at page 524 of the paper book) and also the documents (Annexures P-60 and P-62), the entire expenditure up to

31.03.2022 which is the last date of the check period, on the construction of the said house was Rs.2,24,67,896/- and the rest of the amount has been spent after the said check period and thus, the rest of the amount stated to be expenditure on the construction has been wrongly included in the expenditure for the check period. It is argued that another mistake has been committed by the Investigating Agency in arriving at the figure of Rs.4,29,18,213/- inasmuch as the petitioner and his son have incurred an expense of only Rs.1,02,53,163/- during the check period as expense for the construction of the said house and the remaining expenses have been incurred by Vikas Soni and Shyam Soni and Ashok Soni and reference in PAWAN KUMAR this regard is made to Annexures P-60 to P-62. It is further submitted that CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 8 2023:PHHC:133952o the said argument stands fortified from the fact that even the valuation which has been relied upon by the State in the present case is dated

01.02.2023 which is after a period of more than 10 months after the last date of the check period i.e., 31.03.2022 and thus, excessive amount of Rs.3,26,65,050/- has been shown as expense of the petitioner and his son which deserves to be excluded. Under points 7, 8 & 9, it is argued that an amount of Rs.15,37,568/-, Rs.58,02,134/- and Rs.38,52,737/- respectively have been wrongly shown to be the expenditure incurred by Raghav Soni, son of the petitioner on CLU, construction of Hotel and buying furniture for the said hotel situated at 368-A, Tung Bala, Urban Green Avenue, Amritsar as the said premises have been leased out to M/s Golden Alliance Hospitality Private Limited vide registered lease deed dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure P-63) and as per the terms of the said lease deed, the entire expenditure of CLU, Map Approval, costs of construction etc. was to be incurred by the said lessee company and thus, the amounts under the three pointsodeserveotoobeoexcluded.

¶9Under point No.11, it is submitted that the amount deposited as tax by Suman Soni wife of the petitioner has been wrongly calculated and an amount of Rs.1,71,000/- has been counted in excess and for the said purpose, reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-71. It is further argued that under points 12 & 13, it is stated that excess expenditure of an amount of Rs.18,51,918/- and Rs.23,37,890/- respectively, has been calculated by the Investigating Agency with respect to Vidhan Sabha Elections, 2017 and 2022 respectively as in the same, the amount of donation received by the petitioner, which fact has been duly verified and approved by the Election Commission of India, has not been taken into consideration and for the said PAWAN KUMAR purpose, reference has been made to Annexures P-72 to P-77. It is CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 9 2023:PHHC:133952o submittedothatotheosaidoamountoalsoodeservesotoobeoexcluded.o

¶10Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further highlighted that there are several items of income which were duly earned by the petitioner, his son and his wife which have been illegally excluded or have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency and the detailed chart (Mark 'B') showing that an income of Rs.4,57,28,135/- which should have been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency, has not been taken into account by the Investigating Agency. In the said chart, 20 points have been highlighted showing various amounts of income stated to have been earned by the petitioner, his son and his wife during the 'check period' which have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency and in support of the same, documents including bank statement, Income Tax Returns, copy of ledger account, Form-26AS, GST Registration Certificateoetc.ohaveobeenoannexedotooproveotheosaidopoints.

¶11Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with respect to point No.1 of the Income Chart, total amount which has been credited to the account of the petitioner on account of salary and allowance received from the Punjab Government Treasury for the 'check period' which includes taxable as well as tax free allowances is Rs.1,24,46,718/- whereas the Investigating Agency has only taken into consideration two amounts of Rs.20,62,053/- and Rs.40,02,740/- being salary received as MLA and Minister respectively and thus, an amount of Rs.63,81,925/- has been wrongly excluded, as Investigating Agency has only taken into consideration the salary figure without matching the same with the statements reflected in the bank accounts which were made available by the petitioner and the respective banks to the Investigating PAWAN KUMAR Agency. Reliance has been placed upon Annexures P-8 to P-14 in support CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 10 2023:PHHC:133952o ofotheosaidoarguments.

¶12With respect to point No.3, it is argued that an amount of Rs.16,29,080/- has wrongly not been taken into consideration with respect to the amount received back from Dream Technical Company by Raghav Soni son of the petitioner inasmuch as only an amount of Rs.99,66,755/- have been credited into the said account instead of total amount of Rs.1,15,95,835/- (Rs.77,95,835/- + Rs.38,00,000/-) which facts are apparent fromoAnnexuresoP-15otooP-22.

¶13Under Point No.4, it is argued that an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- has wrongly not been taken into consideration although, the said amount was duly received by the petitioner as advance from M/s Soni Brothers Agricultural Commission Agents, during the check period through proper banking channel and was duly accounted for in the books of accounts and in support of the said entry, bank statement (Annexure P-23) and a copy of the ledger account (Annexure P-24) has been referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that under points No.5 and 6, an amount of Rs.43,66,000/- and Rs.14,50,000/- have wrongly not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency as the said amounts were received as gifts/friendly unsecured loans by the petitioner and the same were given through proper banking channels and were duly paid out of the declared sources of income of the persons who had given the gifts and with respect to the same, reference has been made to documents (Annexures P-25otooP-27).

¶14Under Point No.7, it has been highlighted that an amount of Rs.11,34,000/- received by the wife of the petitioner from M/s Sai Logistical Parts as Rent has not been taken into consideration in spite of the PAWAN KUMAR fact that the same is duly reflected in the bank statements and regarding the CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 11 2023:PHHC:133952o same, GST Registration Certificate has also been produced in addition to the ledger account of M/s Sai Logistical Parts and reference in the said regard is made to Annexures P-28 to P-30. It is argued that as per the stand of the State, same has not been included on account of the fact that Suman Soni, wife of the petitioner is not owner of the premises in question whereas the present petitioner is the owner and the non-inclusion of the said income on the said ground is absolutely illegal inasmuch as the income and expenditure of the petitioner, his wife Suman Soni and of his son Raghav Soni have been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency during the "check period" and since, at any rate, the petitioner is the owner of the premise in question thus, to exclude the said income is absolutely illegal andoagainstolaw.

¶15Similarly, with respect to point Nos.8 to 14 and 20, specific reference has been made to the detailed income chart highlighting the fact that amount mentioned in the column under the heading "Amount of variation", has not been taken into consideration in spite of the said transactions being duly supported by the bank statements, ledger accounts etc.,owhichohaveobeenodulyobeenoannexedowithotheopresentopetition.

¶16With respect to point Nos.15 to 19 of the income chart, it has been submitted that the account statement of the account of Raghav Soni in Axis Bank, which has already been produced on record and marked as Mark "A" and a copy of which had been handed over to the learned State counsel on 12.10.2023, would show that an amount of Rs.1,41,40,000/- has been received by Raghav Soni from Sabrina Soni through bank transactions during the "check period" and specific reference in this regard has been made to the entries dated 18.05.2016, 17.06.2016, 26.10.2016, 21.01.2017, PAWAN KUMAR 25.01.2017, 17.11.2017, 22.08.2019, 16.01.2020, 05.03.2020, 15.07.2020, CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 12 2023:PHHC:133952o

24.11.2020, 16.12.2021, 25.12.2021 and 02.01.2022. It is submitted that Sabrina Soni has her own sources of income and she is a Director in two companies. It is submitted that as per the challan, the difference in the expenditure and the income, was Rs.10,08,98,735.78 which was alleged to be unexplained whereas the petitioner has, as per the chart Mark 'B', proved that an amount of Rs.10,77,11,886/- has been wrongly included in the expenditure/wrongly not included in the income and thus, it cannot be said thatotheopetitionerohasodisproportionateoincome/assets.

¶17Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.05.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal no.5273/2022 titled as "State of Chhattisgarh vs. Gurjinder Pal Singh" in which the State had filed SLP against the grant of regular bail by the High Court in a case of disproportion assets registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court while granting bail had observed that the said petition was nothing but an unwarranted exercise on behalf of the petitioner-State (therein) and that in a case of disproportionate assets, most of the evidence is based on documents and therefore, there is no question of tampering such evidence in spite of the accused therein being a senior police official and accordingly, the said petitionofiledobyotheoStateowasodismissed.

¶18Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a matter of settled law that in case the difference between the known source of income and the expenditure is upto 10%, then the person cannot be held guilty for having disproportionate income and for the said proposition, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Krishnanand Agnihotri vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh PAWAN KUMAR reported as (1977)1 SCC 816. Relevant portion of Krishnanand CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 13 2023:PHHC:133952o Agnihotri's case (supra) which has been highlighted by the learned senior counseloforotheopetitioneroisoreproducedohereinbelow:- "33. It will, therefore, be seen that as against an aggregate surplus income of Rs. 44,383.59 which was available to the appellant during the period in question, the appellant possessed total assets worth Rs. 55,732.25. The assets possessed by the appellant were thus in excess of the surplus income available to him. but since the excess is comparatively small - it is less than ten per cent of the total income of Rs. 1,27,715.43 - we do not think it would be right to hold that the assets found in the possession of the appellant were disproportionate to his known sources of income so as to justify the raising of the presumption under Sub-section (3) of Section 5. We are of the view that, on the facts of the present case the High Court as well as the Special Judge were in error in raising the presumption contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 5 and convictingotheoappellantoonotheobasisoofosuchopresumption."

¶19On the basis of the said submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition for grant of regular bail beoallowedoandohasoprayedothatotheopetitionerobeoreleasedoonoregularobail. ARGUMENTSoOFoLEARNEDoSTATEoCOUNSEL:-

¶20Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that with respect to the medical condition of the petitioner, the petitioner has been admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar while in judicial custody and has been provided with all the required medical facilities in accordance with the rules and procedure, and thus, there is no justification for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on account of his medical condition. It is further submitted that the investigating agency has carried out thorough investigation and after thorough investigation, a detailed challan under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been presented and as per the said challan, the expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son during the check period from 01.04.2016 to

31.03.2022 was Rs.14,91,86,253/- whereas the income of the said three I attest to the accuracy andpersons during the check period from their known sources was CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 14 2023:PHHC:133952o Rs.4,82,87,517/- and thus, their expenditure was in excess of their known sourcesoofoincomeotootheoextentoofoRs.10,08,98,735.78/-.

¶21With respect to point no.1 of the income chart (Mark 'B'), it has been stated that a total amount of Rs.1,24,46,718/- cannot be considered as salary amount of the petitioner as the amount which has been received by the petitioner as salary in the capacity of MLA was Rs.20,62,053/- and Rs.40,02,740/- being a cabinet minister/Deputy Chief Minister during his tenure and as per the information provided by the Joint Secretary, Accounts Branch, payment of the travel allowances, petrol expenses and medical reimbursement are made to the concerned member on the presentation of the original bills of expenditure and clarification with respect to all the expenses/allowances has been sought from the Account Branch, Civil Secretariat, Punjab from where the petitioner was withdrawing salary during his tenure of Cabinet Minister. It is stated that since the allowances are in fact reimbursement of the actual amount spent, thus, the said amount cannot be included in the total salary. With respect to point no.2, it is argued that the amount of Rs.8,75,000/- cannot be added in the income of the petitioner as the installment of Rs.35,00,000/- was disbursed in the check period for the construction of the house and since the loan was taken jointly by the petitioner, his son and his nephew Vikas Soni, thus, the share of Vikas Soni to the extent of 1/4th in the aforesaid installment cannot be included as he is notoaofamilyomember.

¶22With respect to point No.2 of the expenditure chart (Mark 'B'), it has been stated that the investigating agency has taken into consideration the amount of Rs.53,61,100/- and Rs.80,41,650/- with respect to the purchase of land measuring 11 kanal 11 marla and 3 sarsayian at village PAWAN KUMAR Sichander, District Amritsar as 20% share of the said property belongs to CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 15 2023:PHHC:133952o the petitioner and 30% share belongs to his wife Suman Soni and thus, 50% of the value of the said sale deed has been taken into consideration by the investigating agency while calculating the expenditure of the petitioner and his wife and his son, which has been done in accordance with law. It is, however, not disputed that the total amount of the sale consideration with respect to the purchase has been paid from the bank accounts of Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni (Annexures P/55-P/58). With respect to point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, it is submitted by learned State counsel that ththe amounts of Rs.15,46,539/- and Rs.30,02,055/-, being 3/4 share of the salary of the petitioner, have been rightly calculated as personal expenditure of the petitioner as per settled norms and it is a matter of common thknowledge that a person would spend 3/4 of his income on his personal expenses.

¶23On a pointed query raised by this Court with respect to the other points, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that although, certain objections have been raised in the reply dated 11.10.2023 but on the basis of the chart and the documents submitted along with the petition which have been verified, point nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 20 of the income chart and point nos.1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the expenditure chart cannot be disputed and with respect to point nos.5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 of the income chart and point Nos.2 and 3 of the expenditure chart, it is submitted that although the bank transactions and other documents in support of the said entries have been produced and the same are not being disputed but the bonafide of the said transactions is disputed inasmuch as under certain points, gifts have been received by the petitioner fromorelativesoandofriends,owhichoareoquestionableotransactions.o PAWAN KUMAR ARGUMENTSo OFo LEARNEDo SENIORo COUNSELo FORo THE CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 16 2023:PHHC:133952o PETITIONERoINoREBUTTAL:-

¶24Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that with respect to point no.1 of the income chart and point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, the investigating agency on one hand has excluded the amount received by the petitioner on account of allowances etc. on the ground that they are actual expenses but on the other hand, have thsought to deduct 3/4 share as spent on personal expenditure. It is submitted that in case the investigating agency wishes to proceed on the premise that travel allowances etc. have been utilized by the petitioner for the purpose for which they were given, then in that situation substantial expenses of the thpetitioner had already been met and thus, the question of deducting 3/4 share on account of personal expenditure is not called for. It is stated that the facilities which are available to an MLA/Minister would not require them to entail high personal expenditure from their own pocket and thus, the principle which is propounded by the State Counsel might be applicable to a person carrying on private business but would not be applicable to the petitioner. With respect to point no.2 of the expenditure chart, it is reiterated that the sale consideration had been actually paid by Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni regarding which, there are bank transactions and even in the sale deed, there is a reference to the cheque amount which has been debited from the account of Shyam Soni and Vikas Soni and thus, the amounts of Rs. 53,61,100/-and Rs.80,41,650/-, cannot be stated to be expenditure incurred by the petitioner or his wife or his son. In rebuttal to the plea of learned State counsel to the effect that there are certain transactions which are although proved from the bank statements etc. but the question as to whether the said transactions are bonafide or not, is an issue, it is submitted PAWAN KUMAR that once during the "check period", it is proved by virtue of bank CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 17 2023:PHHC:133952o transactions or other genuine documents that the petitioner had received certain sums from a third party or even from a relative, then the said amounts have to be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be criminally prosecuted on a plea that the transaction although prima facie proved from the said document, is, as per the stand of the investigating agency, not bonafide, moreso when there is no other evidence as per the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. to show that the transaction had actually not taken place or was not bona fide. It is stated that even in case point no.2 of the income chart is excluded from the total income and some part of the income as shown in point no.1 is also excluded, then also, the income which has not been taken into consideration and the expenditure which has wrongly been taken into consideration, would still cover the difference which is sought to be projected in the report underoSectiono173(2)oCr.P.C. FINDING:-

¶25This Court has learned counsel for the parties and has perused theopaperobook.o

¶26It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on

09.07.2023 and the investigation is complete and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. which was prepared on 29.08.2023 has been presented in the Court on 31.08.2023 and there are 49 prosecution witnesses and since charges have not been framed, thus, the trial is likely to take time and the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is the case of the petitioner that the Vigilance Enquiry was initiated on 10.10.2022 and the petitioner had duly cooperated in the same for a period of 8 months and had also provided the record which was sought from him. It is also the case of the PAWAN KUMAR petitioner that he is not keeping good health inasmuch as a pace maker was CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 18 2023:PHHC:133952o implanted in his body in the year 2019, as he was diagnosed with a Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and in the year 2021, another pace maker was implanted in the body of the petitioner and the surgeries for the same were performed at Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai and that the petitioner, apart from the above, is also suffering from Diabetes Mellitus, Hypothyroidism, Hypertension. On 14.09.2023, a medical board was constituted to look into the upgradation of the petitioner's already implanted pacemaker from a renowed institute such as PGIMER and the said medical board had recommended that the petitioner needs placement of third pacemaker in the left ventricle with CTVS backup. Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where the petitioner is presently being treated, had prepared a discharge summary on 22.09.2022 (Annexure P-7), the relevant portion of which is reproducedoherienbelow:- "Medical board was constituted in GMDH/GMC Amritsar on 14/9/23 for assessment of patient medical condition. As per the assessment and rdrecommendation of above board, patient needs placement of 3 xxx pacemaker in the left ventricle with CTVS backup. Hence patient is dischargedoandoreferredotooPGIoChandigarhoforofurtheromanagement." A perusal of the above would show that Guru Nanak Dev Hospital had referred the petitioner to PGI for further management. It is further the case of the petitioner that while being taken to PGI from Amritsar, his health deteriorated on the way and thus, he was taken back to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar where he is presently admitted. The factum of admission of the petitioner in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar on account of ill health, is not disputed. The document and the reports of the doctors/medical opinion annexed as Annexures P-6 and P-7 also prima facie show that the petitioner is not keeping good health. The said aspect is also PAWAN KUMAR 2023.10.18 17:18 substantiated by the fact that on 19.07.2023, when the petitioner was CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 19 2023:PHHC:133952o produced before the CJM, Amritsar, the CJM, Amritsar while remanding the petitioner to custody had directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar to provide medical assistance to the petitioner as per Jail Rules and the Jail Superintendent had kept the petitioner in the jail hospital under medical supervision and thereafter shifted the petitioner to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar on account of his deteriorating health. Although, it is the case of the State that proper medical facilities are being provided, it is the plea of the petitioner that his previous operation was conducted at Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai and even for the present medical condition of the petitioner, the petitioner would want further medical treatment from Lilawati Hospital, Mumbai or any other such reputed institute. It is not in dispute that the entire case is based on documents, which form a part of the reportounderoSectiono173(2)oCr.P.C..

¶27As per the allegations in the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., the total expenditure incurred by the petitioner, his son Raghav Soni and his wife Suman Soni for the check period from 01.04.2016 to

31.03.2022 was Rs. 14,91,86,253/- and the income of the said person for the said period was Rs.4,82,87,517/- and thus, an amount of Rs.10,08,98,735.78/- was found to be unexplained by the investigating agency. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner had referred to the detailed chart Mark 'B' to highlight the fact that several items of expenditure have been wrongly included as expenditure of the petitioner, his wife and his son. The chart Mark 'B', also refers to the details of the income which although, have been earned by the petitioner, his wife and his son during the "check period" but have not been taken into consideration by the Investigating Agency. Relevant part of the chart Mark 'B' showing the details of the PAWAN KUMAR expenditureoisoreproducedohereinbelow:- CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 20 2023:PHHC:133952o EXPENDITUREoCHARToXXXoXXXoXXX SR. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT AS REMARKSo AMOUNT ANNEXUR NO. AS PER PER OF ES THE APPLICANT VARIATION CHALLAN

¶1Amount Deposited on 1,90,711/- 1,26,744/- As per certified 63,967/- Copy of Bank Completion of Check BankoStatement Statement is Period by Om Parkash annexed as Sonio ANNEXURE (Ex. Dy. Chief Minister, P-54. PB.) in Punjab National Bank (Queens Road) Amritsar Account No.01302010013440.

¶1Amount Deposited by 53,61,100/- NIL The entire sum 53,61,100/- Excel Chart of Om Parkash Soni (Ex. has been paid by the cheques Dy. Chief Minister) and 80,41,650/- my nephews from 80,41,650/- paid by with his family their declared Shyam Soni members on Dated sources of Income & Vikas Soni

12.06.2019 for buying as per detail is annexed as plot measuring 11 below-ANNEXURE Kanal 11 Marle and 3 Shyam Soni P-55. sarsayian situated at Rs.o50,00,000/- Village Sichander Distt. Vikas Soni Rs. Copy of Bank Amritsar amounting to 2,18,05,800/-o Statement of Rs. 2,50,00,000/-, for Shyam Soni Stamp Paper, Rs. The entire record with 13,50,000/- and Rs. of Bank abovemention 5,00,000/- including Statements, ed cheque RegistrationoAmount. Income Tax entries duly Returns of the highlighted is In total Rs. above named annexed as 2,68,50,000/- (20% Shyam Soni & ANNEXURE share belongs to Om Vikas Soni, were P-56. Parkash Soni, 30% filed with the Share belongs to Suman Investigating Copy of Bank Soni) including all the Agency during Statement of expenses of the course of the Vikas Soni Registration and Stamp enquiry with papers. proceedings prior abovemention to registration of ed cheque FIR. entries duly highlighted is annexed as ANNEXURE P-57. Copy of the Purchase Deed of the property in which the payments cheques duly mentioned is annexed as ANNEXURE P-58. Amount of Rs. 2,98,737/- NIL The entire sum 2,98,737/- Copy of Bank2. 3,98,317/- Deposited by has been paid by Statement of Om Parkash Soni Ex. my nephew from Vikas Soni Deputy Chief Minister, his declared with cheque Raghav Soni (Son) and sources of Income entries duly his Nephew for as per detail highlighted is Sanction of Map from below-annexed as Development Authority Vikas Soni ANNEXURE for Bunglow situated at 3,98,317/- P-59. D.R Enclave Village Heir Ajnala Road, PAWAN KUMAR th Amritsar. 3/4 share of2023.10.18 17:18 I attest to the accuratchy eanedxpense is done by CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 21 2023:PHHC:133952o Om Parkash Soni and hisosonoRaghavoSoni.

¶3Amount of Rs. 4,29,18,213/- 1,02,53,163/- This is the 3,26,65,050/- Government 5,72,24,284/- according amount that has Approved to technical team is been paid from Valuer's Deposited by Om the bank certificate of ParkashoSonio statements of the Valuation of (Ex. Dy. Chief Petitioner and his Cost of Minister), Raghav Soni immediate family Construction st st(Son) and his Nephew members upto 31 as on 31 for construction of March 2022. March 2022, bunglow situated at D.R Pertinently, the is annexed as Enclave Village Heir Investigating ANNEXURE Ajnala Road, Amritsar. Agency has also P-60. th4h share of the expense included the is done by Sh. Om amount that has Ledger Parkash Soni and his been spent after Accounts of sonoRaghavoSoni. the completion of the Cost of theoCheckoPeriod.o Construction stas on 31 March 2022, Clearly, the is annexed as Investigating ANNEXURE Agency has P-61. without any documentary Agreement evidence assumed with the Main and presumed that Construction the entire amount Contractor for thwas paid and 3/4 Civil Works is expenditure has annexed as been done by the ANNEXURE Petitioner which P-62. is completely The Bills of misplaced and the incorrect as per Construction theorecord.o with the suppliers and contractors can be produced as and when required by this Hon'ble Court and the same have not been annexed to avoid the Petition from being voluminous.

¶4Amount received by 15,46,539/- Denied. Correct Clearly, the Om Parkash Soni as amount shall be Investigating MLA from Punjab proved during Agency has Vidhan Sabha as Salary trial without any amountingo documentary Rs. 20,74,890/- from evidence assumed thwhichoheohadospento3/4 and presumed that th3/4 expenditure has been done by the Applicant which is completely misplaced and incorrect as per theorecord

¶5Amount Received by 30,02,055/- Denied. Correct Clearly, the Om Parkash Soni as amount shall be Investigating Minister from Punjab proved during Agency has Vidhan Sabha as Salary trial without any amountingo documentary Rs. 40,02,740/- from evidence assumed thwhichoheohadospento3/4 and presumed that PAWAN KUMAR th3/4 expenditure I attest to the accuracy and has been done by CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 22 2023:PHHC:133952o the Applicant which is completely misplaced and incorrect as per theorecord

¶6Amount of Rs. 15,37,568/- NIL Vide the Lease 15,37,568/- Copy of the 30,00,000/- for CLU of Deed dated Registered House situated at 368-01.02.2021, Lease Deed A, Tung Bala, Urban Raghav Soni had dated Green Avenue, already leased the 01.02.2021 is Amritsar by Raghav said Land to M/s annexed as Soni from which he had Golden Alliance ANNEXURE spento½oshare. Hospitality Pvt P-63. Ltd. for the This is wrong, the Construction of Copy of the premises has been Hotel. CLU fee leased out to M/s payment Golden Alliance The terms of the receipt is Hospitality Pvt Ltd. and Lease Deed annexed as the said charges have clearly state that ANNEXURE been paid by the said the entire expense P-64. Company. on CLU, Map Approval, Cost of Bank Construction, etc. Statement of is to be incurred the Lessee by the name Company Lesseeocompany. from which the payment The impugned deposited, is payment of Rs. annexed as 30,00,000/- has ANNEXURE been made from P-65. the Bank Account of the Lessee Ledger Company from its Account from regular bank the books of account duly the Lessee accounted in that Company in company's CA which the said Audited books of CLU Expense accounts. duly accounted for, is annexed as ANNEXURE P-66. Amount of Rs. 58,02,134/- NIL Vide the Lease 58,02,134/- Ledger7. 1,16,04,268/- spent by Deed dated Account from Raghav Soni with his 01.02.2021 the books of Partner for The Raghav Soni had the Lessee Construction of Hotel already leased the Company in situatedoato said Land to M/s which the said 368-A, Tung Bala, Golden Alliance Construction Urban Green Avenue, Hospitality Pvt Cost duly Amritsar. From which Ltd. for the accounted for, he had spent ½ Construction of is annexed as according to technical Hotel. ANNEXURE team. P-67. The terms of the This is wrong, the Lease Deed Copy of the premises has been clearly state that Bills, Invoices leased out to M/s the entire expense of the Golden Alliance on CLU, Map Suppliers/ Hospitality Pvt Ltd. and Approval, Cost of Contractor is the said construction Construction, etc. annexed as charges have been paid is to be incurred ANNEXURE byotheosaidoCompany. by the name P-68. Lesseeocompany. The impugned payment of Rs. 1,16,04,268/- has been made from I attest to the accuracy and of the Lessee CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 23 2023:PHHC:133952o Company from its regular bank account duly accounted in that company's CA Audited books of accounts.

¶8Amount of Rs. 38,52,737/- NIL In terms of the 38,52,737/- CA Attested 1,54,10,948/- spent for Registered Lease Schedule of buying furniture by Deed dt. Fixed Assets Golden Alliance 23.06.2015, the of the Lessee Hospitality, Green Hotel has been Company as stAvenue, Amritsar from constructed and on 31 March Hotel Sarovar. From operated by M/s 2022, is which Raghav Soni had Golden Alliance annexed as thspento1/4 Hospitalities Pvt ANNEXURE This is wrong, the Ltd.o(Lessee). P-69. premises has been leased out to M/s The entire cost of Golden Alliance Construction, Hospitality Pvt Ltd. and Electrical Fittings, the said furniture has Furniture and been paid by the said Fixtures, Other Company. Fixed Assets has been duly paid and accounted for in the Books of Accounts of the said Lessee Company. The Audited Financial Statements of the Lessee Company show Cost of Fixed Assets at Rs. 17,30,92,600/- including the Cost of Furniture & Fixtures at Rs. 2,14,67,300/- The amount accounted for the Furniture in books of the Lessee Company is much more than the cost estimated by the Investigating Agency.

¶9Amount deposited as 32,34,800/- tax by Raghav Soni s/o Om Parkash Soni to IncomeoTaxoDepartment

¶10Amount deposited as 2,78,500/- 1,07,500/- The amount has 1,71,000/- Reconciliation tax by Suman Soni w/o been incorrectly Table Om Parkash Soni to computed by the indicating the Income Tax Investigating Tax Due and Department. Agency, as they Tax Deposited have ignored the actually, is TDS refunds annexed as received in ANNEXURE Account. P-71. As candidate amount 18,76,918/- 25,000/- The amount is the 18,51,918/- Statement of11. Spent by Om Parkash total expenditure the Bank A/c Soni as election as verified and No. expenses in Vidhan approved by the 91601001420 sabha Elections 2017 Election 8530 is for Amritsar Central Commission of annexed as constituency,oAmritsar. India, whereas the ANNEXURE PAWAN KUMAR Applicant has P-72.2023.10.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and only deposited CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 24 2023:PHHC:133952o Rs. 25,000/- in Details of the the Election Fund ECI mandated Account, which is record of the duly opened and expenses maintained as a incurred is separate Bank annexed as Account in a ANNEXURE Scheduled Bank, P-73 as per the guidelinesoofoECI. Details of the ECI mandated The balance of record of the the funds are funds & received and donations collected from the collected is Donors which annexed as record has been ANNEXURE duly verified and P-74. approved by the ECI.o As candidate amount 23,53,890/- 16,000/- The amount is the 23,37,890/- Statement of12. Spent by Om Parkash total expenditure the Bank A/c Soni as Election as verified and No. expenses in Vidhan approved by the 92101004343 sabha Elections 2022 Election 2294, is for Amritsar Central Commission of annexed as constituency,oAmritsar India, whereas the ANNEXURE Applicant has P-75. only deposited Rs 16,000/- in the Details of the Election Fund ECI mandated Account, which is record of the duly opened and expenses maintained as a incurred is separate Bank annexed as Account in a ANNEXURE Scheduled Bank, P-76. as per the guidelinesoofoECI. Details of the ECI mandated The balance of record of the the funds are funds 7 received and donations collected from the collected is Donors which annexed as record has been ANNEXURE duly verified and P-77. approved by the ECI. TOTAL 6,19,83,751/- EXPENDITURE NOT DONE FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF OP SONI & FAMILY MEMBERS THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCY o INCOMEoCHARToXXXoXXXoXXXoXXXoXXX o ANNEXURESSR. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT REMARKSo AMOUNT NO. ASoPER ASoPER OF THE APPLICANT VARIATION CHALLAN

¶120,62,053/- 1,24,46,718/- The actual amount 63,81,925/- Copy of theTotal salary that has been Bankreceived as M.L.A. SALARY received in the Account in by the Petitioner PAWAN KUMAR 1.4.2016oto Bank Account of which the 2023.10.18 17:18 from 01.04.2016 to

31.3.2017:oRs. the Petitioner amounts haveI attest to the accuracy and CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 25 2023:PHHC:133952o 15,96,158/- during the Check been receivedMarcho2018 Period from the from the

1.4.2017oto Punjab Govt. Punjab

31.3.2018: Treasury on Government Salary received by 40,02,740/- Rs. account of the treasury is the Petitioner being 17,30,953/- Salary and annexed as minister from Allowances as ANNEXURE

1.4.2018oto MLA and later as P-8.March 2018 to

31.3.2019: Minister/ Deputy31.03.2022 15,62,328/- CM has been Copies of the collated from the Income Tax

1.4.2019oto Bank Statement. Returns of

31.3.2020: This includes both the Petitioner Rs. the taxable as well from 2016-10,21,800/- as tax-free 2022 allowances showing his

1.4.2020oto received in the taxable

31.3.2021: Bank. income as Rs.o8,82,800/- Whereas the Salary is Investigating annexed as

1.4.2021oto Agency has only ANNEXURE

31.3.2022: presented the P-9 to P-14 Rs.o6,67,100/- Salary figure respectively. without matching ALLOWANC the same with the ES: Statement of Bank

1.4.2019oTO Accounts duly

31.3.2020: made available by Rs. the petitioner and 10,83,005/- the respective Bank.

1.4.2020oto

31.3.2021: The allowances Rs. received by the 15,33,843/- Petitioner as a MLA and as a

1.4.2021oto Minister are not

31.3.2022: taxable and hence, Rs. not shown in the 16,02,100/- Income Tax Returns, However, TADA they are a clearly ALLOWANC reflected in the E: Bank Account of

1.4.2021oto theoPetitioner.

31.3.2022: Rs.o7,66,631/-

¶126,25,000/- 35,00,000/- The construction 8,75,000/-Loan of Rupees expense has been2,45,00,000/- was met with by the got approved by the entire family Petitioner jointly jointly and not with his son Raghav specifically in the Soni and nephew ratio of the land ownershiposhares.Vikas Soni for house construction from Punjab National Bank, Branch Cantt., Amritsar from

01.04.2016 to

31.03.2022 but during the check period, Rupees PAWAN KUMAR 35,00,000/- were I attest to the accuracy andfound to have been CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 26 2023:PHHC:133952o withdrawn. Amount of 3/4 share of Sh. Om Parkash Soni and his son Raghav Soni.

¶299,66,755/- 77,95,835/- While the amount 16,29,080/- Copy ofAmount received (Theosaid mentioned in the Ledgerback from Dream amountoisothe Challan is Rs. Accounts of Tech. Company by Salary 99,66,755/- Salary Raghav Soni from receivedoby however, on the Payable and

01.04.2016 to RaghavoSoni Page 10 of the Interest

31.03.2022 hasoaoDirector Challan the details Payable andohasobeen presented (though indicating the reflectedoinohis still incorrect) chequesThe said Company ITRs) amount to Rs. issued by the was formed in the 1,05,54,000/-. subject year 2012, wherein, 38,00,000/- Company to Raghav Soni is a (Theosaid The correct figures Raghav Soni, Director. amountowas duly tallied with is annexed as givenoby the amounts ANNEXURE RaghavoSoni received in the P-15. asoaoloanoprior Bank Statement are tootheocheck asounder-Form 26AS periodowhich of the period wasoreturned INTEREST from tooRaghav RECIEVED: 01.04.2016 to Sonioduring 46,92,000/- 31.03.2022 theocheck indicating the periodoand SALARY total TDS sinceoitowasoa RECEIVED: deducted by loan,otheosame 24,86,800/- the said wasonotoshown company, is inotheoITRsoof TOTAL annexed as RaghavoSoni AMOUNT: ANNEXURE butoisoreflected 71,78,800/- P-16. inoLedger Accountsoof TDS INCLUDED: Ledger theoCompany)o 6,17,035/- Accounts of GRANDo TOTAL: the 77,95,835/- Unsecured Loans Further, a loan was deposited returned from the with the said said company company out amounting Rs. which the 38,00,000/- amount has been returned is annexed as ANNEXURE P-17. Copies of the ITRs of Raghav Soni are annexed as ANNEXURE P-18 to P-22 respectively.

¶3NOT 9,00,000/- The subject amount 9,00,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED (Theosaid is received during Statement ofthe Petitioner as BYoTHE amountowas check period the Petitioner Advance from M/s INVESTIG givenoasoa through proper duly Soni Bros., ATING loanobyothe banking channel highlighting Agricultural AGENCY Petitioneroto and duly accounted the amount PAWAN KUMAR CommissionoAgents theosaid for in the Books of received as I attest to the accuracy and Company Accounts. Since, on 4-11-2019 CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 27 2023:PHHC:133952o priorotoothe the Petitioner has is annexed as checkoperiod Agricultural ANNEXURE whichowas Income, it is P-23. receivedoback normal practice to duringothe collect advance Copy of checkoperiod. fromotheoArhatiya Ledger Sinceoitowasoa Account loan,otheosame from M/s wasonotoshown Soni Bros inotheoITRsoof confirming Petitionerobut the Advance isoreflectedoin given to the Ledger Petitioner is Accountsoof annexed as theoCompany) ANNEXURE P-24.

¶4NOT 43,66,000/- The subject amount 43,66,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED was received Statement ofthe Petitioner as during period the PetitionerBYoTHE GiftobyoSunita from Gifts from his real INVESTIG Choprao(sister 01.04.2016 to duly Brother Sh. Ashok ATING ofoPetitioner): 31.03.2022 through highlighting Soni and real AGENCY 11.2.2021:oRs. proper banking the gift Sisters, viz. Smt. 11,50,000/- channel and duly amounts

22.2.2021:oRs. paid out of the received isSunita Chopra and 8,00,000/- declared source of annexed asSmt.oAnuoPuri

10.3.2021:oRs. income of the ANNEXURE 2,16,600/- relevant persons. P-25. They are not only GiftobyoAnu the siblings of the Copy of the Purio(Sisteroof Petitioner but also Affidavits of Petitioner): persons enjoying the relevant

2.9.2017:oRs. sufficient means of donors is 5,00,000/- incomeoandowealth annexed as ANNEXURE GiftobyoAshok P-26. Sonio(Brother ofothe Petitioner):

29.5.2019:o Rs.o3,00,000/-

1.11.2019:o Rs.o2,00,000/-

18.5.2020:o Rs.o3,00,000/-

20.4.2021:o Rs.o9,00,000/-

¶5NOT 14,50,000/- The subject amount 14,50,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED is received during Statement ofthe Petitioner as BYoTHE (Duringothe period from the Petitioner friendly Unsecured INVESTIG checkoperiod, 01.04.2016 to duly Loans from his ATING LoanoofoRs. 31.03.2022 through highlighting immediate Joint AGENCY 34,50,000/- proper banking the Loan Family members, wasotakenoby channel and duly amounts theoPetitioner paid out of the received isviz. Shyam Soni, fromohis declared source of annexed asVikasoSoni. nephews income of the ANNEXURE VikasoSoni relevant persons. P-27. andoShyma They are not only Soni, the joint family however,oan members of the amountoofoRs. Petitioner but also 20olakhsowas persons enjoying returnedoby sufficient means of theoPetitioner. incomeoandowealth. Hence,othe balanceoloan The banking record PAWAN KUMAR 2023.10.18 17:18 ofoRs. and ITR's of these CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 28 2023:PHHC:133952o 14,50,000/- persons have been hasonotobeen duly submitted to considered). Investigating Agency during the course of the enquiry proceedings for their verification andosatisfaction. The amount reported here is net figure after adjusting for any amounts returned back by the Petitioner

¶6NOT 11,34,000/- Smt. Suman Soni 11,34,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED has collected Statement ofSmt Suman Soni BYoTHE during period from Smt. Suman (wife of the INVESTIG 01.04.2016 to Soni duly Petitioner) from M/s ATING 31.03.2022 Rent highlighting Sai Logistical Parts AGENCY from M/s Sai the rent asoRent Logistical Parts on amounts account of the received is Land & Building annexed as belonging to the ANNEXURE Petitioner that had P-28. been rented out to Copy of the the said firm for Ledger operating its Account business. from M/s Sai Logistical The amount has Parts been reported in indicating the the ITR filed by her amounts paid and received in her to Smt bank account, both Suman Soni of which is annexed as documents were ANNEXURE made available to P-29. the Investigating Agency during the GST course of the Registration enquiry certificate of proceedings. M/s Sai Logistical Parts indicating its operating business address from the subject property taken on rent, is annexed as ANNEXURE P-30.

¶7NOT 2,22,413/- The subject amount 2,22,413/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED has been received Statement ofSmt. Suman Soni as BYoTHE during check Smt. Suman maturity of Life INVESTIG period as maturity Soni duly InsuranceoPolicy ATING value in respect of highlighting AGENCY the Life Insurance the Life Policyoheldobyoher. Insurance maturity PAWAN KUMAR 2023.10.18 17:18 amount from CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 29 2023:PHHC:133952o Kotak Mahindra received is annexed as ANNEXURE P-31.

¶8NOT 4,98,525/- In terms of the 4,98,525/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED Lease Deed dt. Statement ofRaghav Soni as BYoTHE 23/06/2016, rent Raghav Soni Rent from M/s INVESTIG has been paid by duly Golden Alliance ATING Lessee Company to highlighting HospitalityoPvtoLtd. AGENCY Raghav Soni which the rent has been duly amounts received in his received, isThe property was bank account annexed asleased by Raghav during check ANNEXURE Soni in the year period. P-32. 2015 i.e. before the Copy of the Check period and The amount had Ledger after the Hotel was been reflected in Account the ITR filed by from M/scompleted, the rent him and received in Goldenwas received by his bank account, AllianceRaghav Soni which both of which Hospitalities is duly shown in his documents were indicating the ITRs. (which are made available to rent amounts annexedoabove) the Investigating paid to Agency during the Raghav Soni, course of the is annexed as enquiry ANNEXURE proceedings. P-33. Lease Deed dt. 23/06/2015, is annexed as ANNEXURE P-34.

¶9NOT 7,00,000/- During the check 7,00,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED period Raghav Soni Statement ofRaghav Soni as BYoTHE has received back Raghav Soni return of Capital INVESTIG the capital invested duly invested from M/s ATING in the said firm highlighting OliveoInternational AGENCY prior to the amounts commencement of received, is check period, i.e. annexed asThe said M/s Olive 1stoAprilo2016 ANNEXUREInternational was P-35. closed before the Copy of the Check Period and Ledger was not operating Account during the said from M/s Oliveperiod.o International indicating the amounts paid to Raghav Soni, is annexed as ANNEXURE P-36.

¶10NOT 13,57,442/- The subject amount 13,57,442/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED has been received Statement ofRaghav Soni as BYoTHE as maturity value Raghav Soni maturity of Life INVESTIG during check duly InsuranceoPolicies. ATING period in respect of highlighting AGENCY the Life Insurance the LIC PAWAN KUMAR 2023.10.18 17:18 Policies as per maturity CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 30 2023:PHHC:133952o followingodetails-amounts HDFC: 78,750 as received is ono26-5-2017 annexed as ANNEXURE HDFC: 6,64,300 as P-37. onoo03-02-2020 Maturity Value RELIANCE: payment 6,14,391 AS ON certificate 29-4-2016 from the Insurance Company, is annexed as ANNEXURE P-38.

¶11NOT 39,20,000/- The subject amount 39,20,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED is received during Statement ofRaghav Soni as BYoTHE check period Raghav Soni Gifts from Sh dulyINVESTIG through proper Ashok Soni (brother ATING banking channel highlighting ofoPetitioner) AGENCY and duly paid out the gift of the declared amounts source of income received is of Sh Ashok Soni. annexed as He is not only real ANNEXURE Uncle of Raghav P-39. Soni but also a person enjoying Copy of the sufficient means of Affidavit of incomeoandowealth. Sh Ashok Soni is annexed as ANNEXURE P-40.

¶12NOT 18,76,000/- The subject amount 18,76,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED is received during Statement ofRaghav Soni as BYoTHE (Duringothe check period Raghav Soni friendly Unsecured INVESTIG checkoperiod, through proper duly Loans from his ATING LoanoofoRs. banking channel highlighting immediate Joint AGENCY 38,90,000/- and duly paid out the Loan Family members, wasotakenoby of the declared amounts RaghavoSoni source of income received, isviz. Shyam Soni, fromohisojoint of the relevant annexed asVikas Soni, Neha Family persons. They are ANNEXURE Soni members not only the joint P-41. VikasoSoni, family members of Copy of the NehaoSonioand Raghav Soni but Affidavits of ShymaoSoni, also persons the relevant however,oan enjoying sufficient persons is amountoofoRs. means of income annexed as 20,14,000/- andowealth. ANNEXURE wasoreturned P-42. byoRaghav The banking record Soni.oHence, and ITR's of these theobalance persons have been loanoofoRs. duly submitted to 18,76,000/- the Investigating hasonotobeen Agency during the considered). course of the enquiry proceedings for their verification andosatisfaction. The amount reported here is net PAWAN KUMAR 2023.10.18 17:18 figure after CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 31 2023:PHHC:133952o adjusting for any amounts returned back by Raghav Soni.

¶13NOT 53,00,000/- The subject amount 53,00,000/- BankAmount received by INCLUDED is received during Statement ofRaghav Soni as BYoTHE Loanofrom check period Raghav Soni friendly Unsecured INVESTIG SukhbiroKaur: through proper duly Loans from Ms ATING Rs. banking channel highlighting Sukhbir Kaur, S. AGENCY 38,00,000/- and duly paid out the Loan Arjinder Singh and of the declared amounts Arjinder source of income received isS. Gurcharan Singh Singh: of the relevant annexed as(Friends of Raghav 5,00,000/- persons. They are ANNEXURE Soni) friends of Raghav P-43. Gurcharan Soni and persons Copy of the Singh: enjoying sufficient Affidavits of 10,00,000/- means of income the relevant persons, isandowealth. annexed as The Affidavits of ANNEXURE these persons have P-44. been duly submitted to the Investigating Agency during the course of the enquiry proceedings for their verification andosatisfaction. The amount reported here is net figure after adjusting for any amounts returned back by Raghav Soni. 15-19 NOT 18.5.2016:- All the said 1,41,40,000/- BankAmount held by Statement ofINCLUDED 1,00,000/- amounts have beenSabrina Soni (wife BYoTHE transferred by Raghav Soni of Raghav Soni) in INVESTIG 17.6.2016:- Sabrina Soni (wife wherein the her account which ATING 5,00,000/- of Raghav Soni) in said amounts were transferred to AGENCY her account which have been the account of 26.10.2016:- were transferred to received has 4,50,000/- the account of been takenRaghav Soni during Raghav Soni on record bythe check period, the

21.1.2017:- during the check the Hon'ble details of which 5,00,000/- period through Court as have been handed Bank transactions MarkoA. over to the Hon'ble 25.1.2017:- and the same are Court and have been 5,00,000/- from her known sourcesoofoincome.taken on record as

17.11.2017:-MarkoA 10,00,000/-

22.8.2019:-10,00,000/-

16.1.2020:-1,00,000/-

5.3.2020:-1,50,000/-PAWAN KUMAR 2023.10.18 17:18 15.7.2020:-CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 32 2023:PHHC:133952o 15,00,000/-

24.11.2020:-34,00,000/-

10.12.2021:-10,00,000/-

25.12.2021:-20,00,000/-

2.1.2022:- 19,40,000/- 20 NOT 9,77,750/- This amount is 9,77,750/- BankIncome Tax Refund INCLUDED duly credited into Statement ofreceived by Sh. Om BYoTHE the Bank Account the Petitioner ParkashoSoni INVESTIG of Mr. Om Parkash is annexed as ATING Soni during the ANNEXURE AGENCY check period. The P-53 said is refund of his earlier Income Tax which has been refunded in his account during the Check Period from officialosources.o 4,57,28,135/-oTOTAL INCOME RECEIVED IN ACCOUNTS OF OP SONI & FAMILY MEMBERS NOT CONSIDERED BY INVESTIGATING AGENCY A perusal of the above-reproduced chart would show that as per the case of the petitioner, total expenditure, which has not been incurred by the petitioner, his wife and his son, has been wrongly taken into consideration by the investigating agency amounts to Rs.6,19,83,751/- and similarly the total income, which has not been taken into consideration by the investigating agency of the said three persons during the check period amounts to Rs.4,57,28,135/- and the total of the said two entries add up to Rs.10,77,11,886/- which is more than the amount i.e., Rs.10,08,98,735.78 which was stated to be unexplained as per the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. It would be relevant to note that point nos. 1,4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 from the expenditure chart have not been disputed and the total of the I attest to the accuracys aanidd points amounts to Rs.4,82,82,264/-. Similarly, point nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 33 2023:PHHC:133952o 10, 11 and 20 of the income chart are not disputed and total of said points comes to Rs.74,19,210/- and the total of the above said two figures amounts to Rs.5,57,01,474/-. The said points are not disputed as the petitioner along with the present petition has been able to produce documents including bank statement, details of cheques vide which payments were made, ledger accounts, registered lease deed dated 01.02.2021 etc. in support of the said points and as has been recorded in para 23 of the present order, the State Counsel has fairly stated that although, in the reply, certain objections were raised regarding the said points but after verifying the documents annexed withotheopetition,otheosaidopointsoareonotodisputed.o

¶28With respect to point nos.2 and 3 of the expenditure chart, amounting to Rs.1,37,01,487/- and point nos. 5,6,12,13,14,15,16,17, 18 and 19 of the income chart totaling to Rs.3,10,52,000/- and the total of the said points comes to Rs.4,47,53,487/-, the bank transaction etc. through which the transaction has taken place has not been disputed by the State counsel as has been recorded in para 23 of the present order but it is the argument of the learned State counsel that bonafide of the said transactions is disputed, inasmuch as, under certain points, gifts have been received by the petitioner from relatives and friends which modus operandi has been used to convert money illegally earned. In rebuttal to the plea of learned State counsel to the effect that there are certain transactions which are although proved from the bank statements etc. but the question as to whether the said transactions are bonafide or not, is an issue, it had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once during the "check period", it is proved by virtue of bank transactions or other genuine documents that the petitioner had received certain sums from a third party or even from a relative, then the said PAWAN KUMAR amounts have to be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioner and CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 34 2023:PHHC:133952o the petitioner cannot be criminally prosecuted on the plea that the transaction although prima facie proved from the said document, is, as per the stand of the investigating agency, not bonafide, moreso when there is no other evidence as per the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. to show that the transaction had actually not taken place or was not bona fide. The said argument on behalf of the petitioner and the State raises a debatable issue and the same would be finally adjudicated by the trial Court and this Court does not wish to give any affirmative opinion on the same lest the same mayoprejudiceotheocaseoofoeitheroofotheopartiesoinotheotrial.

¶29Points no.1 and 2 of the income chart and point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart are the main entries with respect to which the entire transaction is disputed. It is the case of the State that the total amount of Rs.1,24,46,718/- cannot be taken to be salary, allowances of the petitioner as the petitioner has only received a salary of Rs.20,62,053/- as MLA and Rs.40,02,740/- as a Minister during the "check period" and thus, the benefit of Rs.63,81,925/- which is sought to be taken by the petitioner is not made out. It is further the case of the State that the petitioner has included the allowances in the said total income which would not be permissible inasmuch as the said allowances are in the form of reimbursement for the actual expenses incurred by the petitioner and for which original bills are presented and with respect to point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, it is ththe case of the State that the investigating agency had deducted 3/4 salary of the petitioner on account of personal expenditure as per settled practice as a substantial amount of salary of a person is spent on their personal expenditure. Contrary arguments on behalf of the petitioner, as have been noticed hereinabove, are to the effect that with respect to point no.1 of the PAWAN KUMAR income chart and point nos.5 and 6 of the expenditure chart, the CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 35 2023:PHHC:133952o investigating agency on one hand has excluded the amount received by the petitioner on account of allowances etc. on the ground that these are actual thexpenses but on the other hand have sought to deduct 3/4 share of the salary of the petitioner as his personal expenditure. It is submitted that in case the investigating agency wishes to proceed on the premise that the travel allowances etc. have been utilized by the petitioner for the purpose for which they were given, then in that situation substantial expenses of the thpetitioner had already been met and thus, the question of deducting 3/4 on account of personal expenditure is not called for. It is stated that the facilities which are available to an MLA/Minister would not require them to entail high personal expenditure from their own pocket and thus, the principle which is sought to be propounded by the State Counsel might be applicable to a person carrying on private business but would not be applicable to the petitioner. The said argument also raises a debatable issue and with respect to which, this Court does not wish to give any final opinion andotheosameowouldobeoconsideredoduringotheocourseoofotrial.

¶30With respect to point No.2 of the income chart, the arguments of learned State Counsel to the effect that the benefit of Rs.8,75,000/- thcannot be given to the petitioner, as the said amount is 1/4 share of Vikas Soni from the total installment of Rs.35,00,000/- and since, the said Vikas Soni is the nephew of the petitioner and neither his income nor his expenditureohaveobeenotakenointooconsideration,ocarriesoweight.

¶31From the abovesaid discussion, it comes about that in case the petitioner is able to prove all the points mentioned in Chart 'B' during the course of trial then the petitioner would be able to justify the difference between the income earned and the expenditure incurred by the petitioner, PAWAN KUMAR his wife and his son as alleged in the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 36 2023:PHHC:133952o and even in case point nos.1 and 2 of the income chart amounting to Rs.63,81,925/- and Rs.8,75,000/- respectively (total Rs.72,56,925/-) are not taken into consideration then also the petitioner would be able to substantiallyojustifyotheosaidodifference.o

¶32The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Chhattisgarh's case (supra)ohasoobservedoasounder:- "Mr. Mukul Rohtgi, learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent is a very high ranking police officer being Additional Director General of Police and has indulged in tampering of evidence. He submits that all these aspects have been ignored by the High Court while granting bailotootheorespondent. We find that the present petition is nothing but a totally unwarranted exercise on behalf of the petitioner-State. While considering the application for bail, the status of the applicant is not to be considered. As an ordinary citizen is entitled to his rights under the Constitution, equally a high ranking officer cannot be denied the right under the Constitution. In a case of disproportionate assets, most of the evidence is documentary evidence and therefore, there is no question of tampering such an evidence. Moreover, in any case the High Court has imposedostringentoconditionsotooensureotheointerestoofotheoprosecution. The present Special Leave Petition is without any merit and is accordinglyodismissed. Pendingoapplicationsoalsoostandodisposedoof."

¶33The present case is based on documentary evidence and the said documents are with the prosecution and the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted and thus, no useful purpose would be served by keepingotheopetitioneroinofurtheroincarceration.

¶34Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any PAWAN KUMAR other case and subject to the condition that the petitioner would surrender CRM-M-49643-2023(O&M) 37 2023:PHHC:133952o hisopassportobeforeotheotrialoCourt.

¶35However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bailograntedotootheopetitioner.

¶36Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present order which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. All questions with respect to the admissibility, relevance and genuineness of the documents submitted by both the parties are kept open, to be finally considered and adjudicated upon duringotheocourseoofotrial.

¶37Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposedoofoinoviewoofotheoabovesaidoorder. (VIKASoBAHL) Octobero13,o2023 oooooooooooooooooooJUDGE Pawan/DavinderoKumar Whetherospeakingo/oreasoned Yes/No Whetheroreportable Yes/No