Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 07.08.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2024:HHC:6499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMP(M) No. :1448 of 2024
.
Decided on : 07.08.2024
Jitender Singh ...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. Varun Rana, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General, assisted by
Inspector Dujesh Kumar, I.O., Police
Station SV & ACB, Chamba, District
Chamba, H.P.
Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)
Applicant-Jitender Singh, apprehending his
arrest, in case FIR No. 04 of 2023, dated 17 th July, 2023,
registered under Sections 409, 420, 120-B, 467, 468,
471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
'IPC') and Sections 4 and 5 of the Himachal Pradesh
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2024:HHC:6499
Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act, 1983, with Police
Station SV & ACB, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., has
.
filed the present application, under Section 482 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred
to as 'BNSS').
2. By way of the present application, under
Section 482 of the BNSS, the indulgence of this Court
has been sought to direct the Police/Investigating Officer
of Police Station SV & ACB, Chamba, District Chamba,
H.P., to release the applicant, on bail, in the event of his
arrest, in the above-noted FIR.
3. According to the applicant, he has falsely been
implicated, in the present case, as, he is an innocent
person and has nothing to do with the case.
4. It is the case of the applicant that the
investigation, in the present case, is complete and
nothing is to be recovered from or at the instance of the
applicant.
5. Applicant has also tried his luck before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District
3 2024:HHC:6499
Chamba, H.P., by moving similar bail application, which
was dismissed, vide order, dated 3rd July, 2024.
.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has
submitted that even, on the ground of parity, the applicant
is entitled to be released on bail, as his co-accused, namely
Jagdish Raj Rana, has already been released on bail, by
this Court, vide order, dated 17 th November, 2023, passed
in CrMP (M) No. 1843 of 2023.
7. Apart from this, the applicant has given
certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by,
in case, directions are issued to the Police/I.O., under
Section 482 of the BNSS.
8. On all these submissions, learned counsel for
the applicant has prayed that the bail application may
kindly be allowed.
9. When put to notice, the Police has filed the
status report, disclosing therein that on 24 th February,
2022, complainant-Jitender Singh has moved a
complaint, before the Police, disclosing therein that there
are irregularities in construction of One Stop Centre, as
4 2024:HHC:6499
well as, in the purchase of the articles, being used in
different child care institutions.
.
9.1. Upon this, Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Additional
Superintendent of Police, SV & ACB, Chamba has
conducted the investigation. During inquiry, it was
found that one Bal Krishan Sharma, Superintendent
Grade-I, was working as Executive District Programme
Officer w.e.f. 6th April, 2021 to 23rd April, 2022, whereas,
one Jagdish Raj Rana, was working as District
Programme Officer (Women and Child Development Plan)
Chamba w.e.f. 2nd December, 2019 to 31st March, 2021.
9.2. According to the status report, the cost of
construction of One Stop Centre is stated to be
₹ 5,87,225/-, but, the Assistant Engineer (PWD) has
prepared the technical evaluation report, according to
which, a sum of ₹ 2,20,819/- was spent. As such, a sum
of ₹ 3,66,406/- was embezzled by Jitender Kumar
(Contractor) (applicant) and Jagdish Raj Rana by
preparing forged bills and entering the forged data in the
measurement book.
5 2024:HHC:6499
9.3. On the basis of above facts, the Police
registered the case against the applicant.
.
9.4. After perusing the status report, filed by the
police, interim protection was awarded to the applicant
on 4th July, 2024. Thereafter, the police has submitted
the supplementary status report, mentioning therein
that the accused named in the FIR were associated, in
the investigation of the case.
9.5. It is the further case of the police that the
procedure with regard to the tender and award letter has
not been followed, while constructing the boundary wall
of One Stop Centre, Sarol.
9.6. During investigation, it was also found that
the evaluation report of the boundary wall of One Stop
Centre, was signed by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD,
Division-I. It was also found that the evaluation report,
so prepared, was forged.
9.7. As per the status report, during the
investigation, on 18th June, 2024, the residential house
of accused-Bal Krishan was searched, but, the stamp
6 2024:HHC:6499
allegedly used by them, was not found there. Similarly,
on 20th June, 2024, the house of applicant-Jitender
.
Singh was searched, but, the stamp could not be found
there also. As such, the police has added Section 201
IPC, in this case.
9.8. In the supplementary status report, it has
been mentioned that when, the evaluation report was
prepared, at that time, the District Programme Officer,
Chamba, Jagdish Raj Rana, was on 15 days' earned
leave and the charge of the District Programme Officer
was with Bal Krishan Sharma, Superintendent Grade-I
and he has released an amount of ₹ 4,98,625/- to
Contractor Jitender Singh (applicant), on 17th June,
2020, for the construction of boundary wall of One Stop
Centre.
9.9. Further, it has been mentioned that
applicant-Jitender Singh has joined the investigation.
10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the application.
11. Heard.
7 2024:HHC:6499
12. The applicant, as per the directions of this
Court, has joined the investigation. The role, allegedly
.
played by the applicant, in the commission of offences,
will be proved during the trial. At the time of deciding
the bail application, the detailed discussion about the
material collected by the I.O. should be avoided, as it
would cause prejudice either to the case of prosecution
or to the case of accused.
13. Moreover, there is nothing in the status report
to justify the dismissal of the application.
14. The application cannot be dismissed, as a
matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment, is
prohibited under the law, and the applicant is presumed
to be innocent, till the conclusion of the trial.
15. Keeping in view the fact that the applicant is
permanent resident of District Chamba, as such, it
cannot be apprehended that in case, interim order is
made absolute, he may not be available for the trial.
16. Moreover, the applicant is also entitled for grant
of bail on the basis of parity, as his co-accused, namely
Jagdish Raj Rana, has already been released on bail, by
8 2024:HHC:6499
this Court, vide order, dated 17 th November, 2023, passed
in CrMP (M) No. 1843 of 2023.
.
17. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the
view that the Police has not been able to make out a case
for custodial interrogation of the applicant, as such, the
interim order, dated 4th July, 2024, is liable to be made
absolute.
18. Consequently, interim order, dated 4th July,
2024, is made absolute. The applicant is ordered to be
released on bail, in case FIR No. 4 of 2023, dated 17 th
July, 2023, under Sections 409, 420,467, 468 and 120-
B of IPC and Sections 9 and 13 of the Prevention of
Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983, registered with
Police Station, SV & ACB, Chamba, on his furnishing
personal bail bond, in the sum of ₹ 50,000/-, with one
surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
19. 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;
9 2024:HHC:6499
b) That 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;
20. 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.
21. The applicant is directed to move regular bail
application, when charge sheet will be filed in the
Competent Court of Law.
22. It is made clear that the respondent-State is
at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case,
any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the
applicant.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
August 07, 2024
( rajni )
