The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s plea seeking to postpone his trial in the Manesar land case on the grounds that proceedings against his co-accused had been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya ruled that the stay on trial of co-accused could not justify delaying proceedings against Hooda, noting that charges could still be framed and evidence recorded independently. “He is not accused of conspiracy alone; other offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act are also there,” the court observed.

Hooda was seeking directions to quash the orders dated September 19 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, rejecting his prayer to postpone the proceedings.

Justice Dahiya’s Bench was told that the Special Judge had fixed the case for framing of charges in the case registered on September 15, 2015, for cheating and other offences under Sections 420, 471, 120-B of the IPC and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Senior counsel for Hooda contended during the course of hearing that the allegations pertained to a single transaction involving all co-conspirators. As such, the trial could not proceed piecemeal. “As the trial against co-conspirators has already been stayed, charge cannot be framed against the petitioner alone, nor can the trial proceed. The evidence against all these accused is common, and none of the witnesses can be examined in the absence of either of them,” it was argued.

Rejecting the argument, the High Court observed: “The contention that in the absence of co-conspirators — as trial qua them has been stayed — the petitioner cannot be charged for conspiracy, is without substance. It is because the petitioner himself has not challenged the order, dated December 1, 2020, declining his application for discharge. It has attained finality qua him, leaving no option with the trial Court but to frame the charge. He cannot be permitted to impede the obvious outcome of that order by alluding to an interim order of stay granted in favour of the co-accused. His attempt to do so is imprudent and clearly an afterthought as he has accepted the order directing framing of charge against him, dated December 1, 2020.”

The court made it clear that the pending stay in favour of co-accused could not delay proceedings against others. “In case the SLPs against the co-accused are to be finally dismissed, they can be charged separately and evidence can then be taken against them; and in case their SLPs are to be allowed, it will have consequence only for the offence of conspiracy so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, framing of charge and proceeding with the trial will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.”