Disproportionate Assets Indicate Drug Trafficking At Instance Of Corrupt Punjab Police, High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To Dismissed AIG Raj Hundal

Observing that being a police officer, he was supposed to be extremely upright, primarily when dealing with sensitive matters, including drugs, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of former AIG Raj Jit Hundal in a disproportionate assets case.

A SIT constituted by the state, in pursuance of suo moto cognizance taken by the Court in 2013 on drug menace in Punjab, had found the involvement of Hundal in drugs trafficking.

According to the SIT report, Hundal is one of the beneficiaries, who gave patronage not only to drug smugglers but also to corrupt police officers who were enriching themselves illegally and also passing on the drug money to various officials and politicians.

The Court noted that there are bank transactions of 13 crores which are not explained by him in the plea.

Justice Anoop Chitakara said,

“The petitioner, being a police officer, was supposed to be extremely upright, primarily when dealing with sensitive matters, including drugs. The background of the sources of such massive disproportionate assets points to drug trafficking at the instance and involvement of some of the corrupt Punjab Police officers, including the petitioner. The prima facie evidence collected so far points out the sources of funds from such illicit and illegal drug trade. The investigation is ongoing, and a custodial investigation of the petitioner is required to determine whether the illicitly acquired money was taken to scuttle the investigation in some severe offenses, help the accused in such offenses, harboring the drug dealers, or even the direct drug dealings.”

The Court further added that considering the impact of the matter involving drugs, the custodial investigation is required to know the source of money, patronizing of drug smugglers by the petitioner and cohort police officers who were supervising the drug cases.

Adding that in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case of mere disproportionate assets but of its trail originating from the drug cartels, the bench said, “If the police officers themselves start harboring the drug paddlers and drug mafia, its impact on society would be massive, and its magnitude would be beyond comprehension.”

The counsel appearing for Hundal senior advocate Vikram Chaudhary, argued that the matter was brought to the notice of Chief Minister and the implication of Hundal demonstrates the malice and political vendetta because of the change of regime.

Rejecting the argument Justice Chitkara said, “simply because the matter was brought to the notice of the Chief Minister would not, on the face of it, show any malice or political vendetta. Being the head of the State, the Chief Minister is responsible for seeing how the law and order of the State is to be maintained and also for eradicating rampant corruption. If the Chief Minister takes a personal interest, it cannot be treated as a political vendetta.”

This Court cannot accept such an argument, as it would not only amount to interference in the working of the Government but would also frustrate the electoral manifestoes and amount to interference in the people’s representatives who are at the helm of affairs and accountable to the people, added the judge.

While noting that Hundal has not explained the transactions of over Rs. 13 crores, the Court said it is concerned with the disproportionate assests as he merely being a police officer and his salary can be a fraction of the amount which was deposited in the banks.

The Court opined that being a public servant, such a massive amount in these transactions point to criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to bail, it held and dismissed the pre arrest bail plea.

Appearance: Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Advocate with. Advocates Sangram Saron, Keshavam Chaudhri,

Hargun Sandhu, Digvijay Singh for the petitioner

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 204

Title: Raj Jit Singh Hundal v. State of Punjab & others