Panchkula, Feb. 21 -- A local court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Joginder Sharma, district revenue officer, in a corruption case registered by the state vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (ACB), Panchkula. The court held that the allegations against him require custodial interrogation at this stage of investigation. The order was passed by additional sessions judge Bikramjit Aroura on February 20. The FIR against Sharma was registered on January 30 in connecion with an "illegal" land deal involving a large parcel of land belonging to the Pearl Group in the Raipur Rani tehsil of Panchkula district. The land was reportedly under a stay order of the Punjab and Haryana high court and, therefore, could not be legally transferred or sold. Despite this, vigilance officials allege that false entries were made in revenue records, the stay was removed and sale deeds were registered illegally. The transaction was allegedly carried out in collusion with revenue officials and private individuals. The prosecution claimed that Sharma was not a peripheral figure but part of a structured conspiracy. Investigators alleged that he coordinated with co-accused officials, including a former tehsildar, and received illegal monetary consideration. It was further submitted that financial trails and communication records pointed towards his involvement and that similar transactions were executed in the Raipur Rani area using the same modus operandi. On February 12, the court had granted Sharma interim anticipatory bail, noting that he was not named in the FIR and that much of the evidence appeared documentary in nature. He was directed to join the investigation and comply with strict conditions. Pursuant to the interim order, Sharma joined the probe on February 14, 16 and 18. However, in its final order, the court recorded that the investigating agency alleged a lack of effective cooperation. The status report stated that Sharma failed to produce electronic devices and gave evasive replies on material aspects. Two phones allegedly used by him were also not recovered, with Sharma claiming they were lost after the FIR. Rejecting the defence argument that his implication was based only on disclosure statements of co-accused, the court held that the material collected could not be brushed aside and required custodial interrogation....