Monika Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18055 HP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                   Cr. MP (M) No.2334 of 2023




                                                                              .
                                                      Decided on : 17.11.2023





    Monika Devi                                                              ...Applicant





                                                Versus


    State of Himachal Pradesh                                             ...Respondent





    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1


    For the applicant                       :    Mr. Atul Thakur, Advocate vice
                                                 Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar,
                                                 Advocate.



    For the respondent                  :        Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional
                                                 Advocate General, assisted by
                                                 ASI Harjeet Singh, Incharge




                                                 Police Post, Dabhota, Police
                                                 Station,  Nalagarh,   District





                                                 Sirmaur, H.P.





    Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Applicant­Monika Devi, apprehending her

arrest, in FIR No.33/23, dated 06.02.2023, registered

under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') with Police Station,

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., has filed the present

application, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

.

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC').

2. By way of the present application, the

indulgence of this Court has been sought to direct the

I.O./police of Police Station Nalagarh, to release the

applicant on bail, in the event of her arrest, in the above

noted case. r

3. According to the applicant, she is an innocent

person and has falsely been implicated, in the present

case, as she has nothing to do with the offences, for which,

she has been named, as accused, in the FIR, in question.

4. On the basis of the above facts, learned counsel

for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf

of the applicant, for which, she is ready to abide by, in

case, any direction is issued to the Police/Investigating

Officer, under Section 438 Cr.PC.

5. On the basis of the averments, a prayer has

been made to allow the application.

6. When put to notice, the police has filed the

status report, disclosing therein that on 06.02.2023,

complainant Bholi Devi, moved a complaint against the

applicant before SI Neelam Kumar, Incharge, Police Post

.

Dabhota, mentioning therein that Panchayat Secretary has

forged the signatures of Pradhan and had withdrawn the

amount.

6.1. According to the contents of the complaint,

Monika Devi, applicant, is posted as Panchayat Secretary

and during the tenure of the previous panel of Panchayat,

she has embezzled an amount of Rs.4,50,000/­ and during

current panel of Panchayat, she has not deposited a sum

of Rs.2,75,000/­ and with the forged signatures of

Pradhan, she has withdrawn a sum of Rs.3,00,000/. With

regard to the incident, the complainant has made various

complaints to BDO Nalagarh, DC Solan, DPO Solan.

6.2. On the basis of the above facts, the FIR, in

question, was registered and criminal machinery swung

into motion.

6.3. During investigation, it was found that the

applicant was posted as Secretary Gram Panchayat, Dhang

Nihli and in the year 2020­21, an amount of Rs.1,16,000/­

and Rs.1,27,600/­ were deposited being the auction money

of the orchard and out of the said amount, she has not

deposited a sum of Rs.1,48,000/­.

.

6.4. Similarly, an amount of Rs.2,900/­ received

from Numbardar Moti Lal, has also been misused. During

the Covid period, the applicant has shown the forged

amount of expenditure of Rs.40,000/­ in cash book, at

page numbers 20 and 24.

6.5. In order to verify the allegations, the relevant

record from Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank, Nalagarh,

was also obtained. It is the further case that the applicant

has misused a sum of Rs.6,11,267/­, for her personal use

and out of the said amount, she has deposited a sum of

Rs.4,27,000/­. However, a sum of Rs.1,84,000/­ has not

been returned.

7. On the basis of the above status report, interim

protection was awarded to the applicant. Consequently,

the applicant has joined the investigation.

8. Today, the police filed the supplementary status

report, according to which, the specimen signatures of the

applicant, were obtained by producing her before the Court

of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh.

No other case was found to be registered against the

applicant.

.

9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to dismiss the application.

10. The applicant has joined the investigation, as

per the directions of this Court. The status report, filed

today, is totally silent about the fact that custodial

interrogation of the applicant is required, in this case.

11. The role allegedly played by the applicant, in

the commission of the alleged crime, will be proved, by the

prosecution, during the trial.

12. The bail application cannot be rejected as a

matter of punishment, as, dismissal of the application is

nothing, but, sending the applicant, in judicial custody.

13. Moreover, the trial of the case will take

sufficient long time, as such, no useful purpose would be

served by rejecting the application, which would amount to

convict the applicant, prior to trial. Pre­trial punishment is

prohibited under the law. Punishment can only be

imposed, after the full fledged trial.

14. The applicant is permanent resident of Village

and Post Office Dhela, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, as

.

such, it cannot be apprehended that, in case, she is

ordered to be released on bail, she may not be available for

the trial. Even otherwise, the documentary evidence,

pertaining to the case has also been taken into possession

as depicted from the status report.

15. Moreover, at the time of deciding the bail

application, detailed discussion of the evidence, so

collected by the prosecution, should be avoided by the

Court, as, it would cause prejudice to case of the

prosecution, as well as, to that of the accused.

16. Accordingly, the interim order dated 14.09.2023,

passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore,

it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the

event of her arrest, in case FIR No.33 of 2023, dated

06.02.2023, registered with Police Station, Nalagarh,

District Solan, H.P., under Sections 409 & 420 of the IPC,

on her furnishing personal bond, in the sum of ₹50,000/­,

with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of

the Investigating Officer.

17. This order, however, shall be subject to the

following conditions:

.

a) That the applicant will join the investigation of

the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;

b) The applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court;

c) That the applicant will not, directly or

indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating

Officer or the Court; and

d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek

exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application.

18. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,

shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the

merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,

only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

19. The applicant is directed to move regular bail

application, when charge sheet will be filed in the

Competent Court of Law.

20. It is made clear that the respondent­State is at

liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of

.

the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.

                                           ( Virender Singh )
                                                 Judge
    November 17, 2023(ps)



                   r          to