Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea to Halt Manesar Land Scam Trial; Stay for Co-Accused “No Ground to Stall Proceedings”
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya dismissed a plea filed by the former Chief Minister of Haryana seeking to halt trial proceedings in the Manesar land scam case, holding that the stay granted by the Supreme Court to some co-accused could not justify postponing the trial against him. The Court observed that since no stay operated in his favour, the proceedings for framing of charges must continue. The case concerns allegations that senior government officials and private entities conspired to allow land acquisition proceedings in Manesar to lapse, enabling ineligible builders to obtain change-of-land-use permissions and causing loss to the State exchequer.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of two orders dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula. These orders rejected an application for postponement of trial proceedings and fixed a date for framing charges against the accused who did not have the benefit of a stay from the Supreme Court. The case arose from an FIR dated 12.08.2015 registered for alleged dropping of land acquisition proceedings in Manesar. The investigation was transferred to the CBI, which registered FIR on 15.09.2015. A chargesheet was filed on 01.12.2018 for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.
Arguments on charge were heard, and the petitioner’s request for discharge was dismissed on 01.12.2020. The trial court also summoned additional accused. Several co-accused challenged the order on charge; their petitions were ultimately dismissed by the High Court on 15.05.2025. They approached the Supreme Court, which granted stays on further proceedings between 29.05.2025 and 22.09.2025 only in their cases.
The petitioner sought postponement of trial on the ground that he was alleged to have conspired with co-accused whose trials had been stayed. He argued that proceedings could not continue against him alone because the evidence was intertwined. He further submitted that the trial court failed to exercise its power of adjournment under Section 346 BNSS. The CBI contended that since the petitioner never challenged the 01.12.2020 discharge-rejection order, it had attained finality. It was also argued that trials under the PC Act cannot be stayed under Section 19(3)(c), relying on Satya Narayana Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.
The Court recorded that the petitioner was accused of offences linked to “dropping the land acquisition proceedings,” alleging that he and senior government functionaries “deliberately allowed acquisition proceedings… to lapse by ensuring that the award… is not passed within the statutorily prescribed period.” It further noted that landowners were “forced to sell their land holdings in panic on the threat of acquisition,” after which “various licenses and permissions for change of land use… were issued to ineligible builders/applicants,” causing loss to the State and landowners and “wrongful gain to private builders/entities/accused.”
The Court stated that the petitioner’s discharge plea was dismissed on 01.12.2020 and “has attained finality qua him.” It observed that the petitioner could not “impede the obvious outcome of that order by alluding to an interim order of stay granted in favour of the co-accused,” describing the attempt as “imprudent and clearly an afterthought.” The Court recorded that “stay of trial against the co-accused cannot be a ground to postpone the trial against the petitioner as well,” adding that charge and evidence could proceed despite the stay against others.
It stated that if the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the co-accused’s SLPs, “they can be charged separately,” and if allowed, the consequence would relate only to the conspiracy aspect. It concluded that proceeding with the trial would “not cause any prejudice to the petitioner.”
On the contention regarding Section 346 BNSS, the Court stated that there was no “valid reason for the trial Court to adjourn the proceedings.”
Referring to Satya Narayana Sharma, the Court reproduced that corruption trials are often delayed because “stay of the trials are obtained… without considering… Section 19(3)(c),” which has an “adverse effect on combating corruption.” It recorded that the Supreme Court held that “in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act there can be no stay of trials,” and that even if a Section 482 petition is entertained, “there can be no stay of trials under the said Act.”
The Court directed that “there is no merit in the petition and it stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. S. Cheema, Senior Advocate; Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate; Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Advocate; Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent (CBI): Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate
Case Title: Bhupinder Singh Hooda v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Case Number: CRM-M-56380-2025
Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya
