Decided On: 28.02.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4277 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 28.02.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 February, 2025

2025:HHC:4171 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No.199 of 2025 Decided on: 28.02.2025 __________________________________________________________ Rohit Beakta .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Peeyush Verma Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge[Oral] Bail petitioner, Rohit Beakta, has come

up before this Court, under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred

to as 'BNSS'] seeking pre-arrest bail, originating from

FIR No.02 of 2025, dated 01.02.2025, registered

at Police Station, SV & ACB, Shimla, District Shimla

[H.P.], under Sections 61(2), 318, 335, 336, 338,

339 and 340 read with Section 3(5) of the BNSS

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2025:HHC:4171 )

and Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set up by Mr. Peeyush Verma, Learned

Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Learned

Counsel, is that the petitioner is innocent and has

not committed any act contrary to law and he has been

falsely implicated at the instance of persons having

inimical relations. False and twisted facts and alleged

political rivalry has been alleged to have been made

the basis for implicating the petitioner. It is averred

that some clerical mistakes committed by the officials,

which are not based on facts have been made the

basis for false implication of the bail-petitioner.

2(i) Bail-petitioner has furnished an

undertaking that he shall not impede the grant of

bail in any manner. Another undertaking has been

furnished that he shall join the investigation and

shall appear before the police authorities as and when

required/called for, in relation to the accusation, in

instant case.

2025:HHC:4171 )

2(ii) Petitioner has given an undertaking that

he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise

to any person acquainted with facts of instant case. It

is averred that the petitioner has a family consisting of

parents, wife and a minor son, who are dependent

upon him and his personal liberty cannot be restricted,

curtailed or taken away on mere accusation by the

State Authorities. Petitioner has also stated that he

has no past criminal antecedents whatsoever.

It is in this background, that the prayer

for bail has been made, by way of the instant petition. [

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

3. Based on the aforesaid averments, the

Coordinate Bench of this Court issued notice, on

4.2.2025 to the State Authorities to file reply/Status

Report.

3(i). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the

matter was listed on 5.2.2025 when, the Status

Report dated 5.2.2025 [Taken on Record], on

Instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Station House Officer, Police Station SV & ACB, 2025:HHC:4171 )

Shimla was filed in the Court.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:

4. Perusal of Status Report dated 5.2.2025,

indicates that investigation is in at preliminary stage.

It is averred that during Inquiry-Investigation, the

Investigating Agencies have taken the record from

Office of Sub Divisional Officer, (Civil), Theog and

Assistant Engineer (JSV), Sub Division Theog

including the notebooks as maintained by officials of

Jal Shakti Vibhag. It is averred that records showing

the engagement of tankers/pickups for transporting

the portable water to different locations is being

scrutinized.

4(i) In Para 10(ii) of the Status Report, it is

stated that four Contractors namely Surinder Verma,

Rohit Beakta, Kuldeep Kamal and Manoj Rayta,

[including present bail petitioner, Rohit Beakta] have

been associated in the investigation. Status Report

indicates that in addition to Contractors other persons

who were engaged in the supply of portable water

through tankers/pickups and the Government officials 2025:HHC:4171 )

including Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Theog, Assistant

Engineer and Junior Engineer and other officials are

yet to be examined hereinafter. It is averred that the

records are being scrutinized. Even the spot, where the

water was supplied, is to be inspected. So far as bail

petitioner [Rohit Beakta] is concerned, the Status

Report does not indicate that the petitioner was not

cooperating with Investigating Agencies after grant of

interim bail on 5.2.2025 or petitioner was hampering

the investigation in any manner or his custodial

interrogation was required by the police.

5. Heard Mr. Peeyush Verma, Learned Senior

Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate

for the bail petitioner; and Mr. Arsh Rattan, Learned

State Counsel.

ANALYSIS

6. Taking into account entirety of the facts

and circumstances and the material on record as

borne out from the Status Report dated 5.2.2025,

this Court is of the considered view, that the interim

bail, granted to petitioner-Rohit Beakta on 05.02.2025, 2025:HHC:4171 )

is made absolute, with directions to continue the

concession of bail, to the petitioner, for the following

reasons:-

6(i) Perusal of Status Report filed by the State

Authorities indicates that on 27.12.2023 some inputs

were received that pumping machinery had suddenly

collapsed and extra water was required for Devta

function, in Deorighat Panchayat in Tikkar. Even

complaints regarding non-supply of water were

received from villagers and school authorities also.

In view of this, an urgent need was felt by department

for supply and deployment of water through water

tankers. Accordingly, the SDO (Civil) Theog, directed

Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of Jal

Shakti Vibhag Theog to initiate tendering process and

ensure water supply through Contractors, for which

budget stood allocated. Accordingly, Assistant

Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Matyana/Koti/Theog

initiated the tendering process and after negotiation,

the water supply rates were fixed on 26.12.2024 and

four Contractors were approved for supplying portable 2025:HHC:4171 )

water to area. Pursuant to the tendering finalization,

the work of supplying water through tankers was

awarded to Four Contractors namely Surender Verma,

Manoj Rayta, Kuldeep Kamal and Rohit Beakta [bail

petitioner] for which the Contractors were released

payments by concerned agency. Status Report further

indicates that portable water through tanker was filled

from river-Khud situated on Mori road i.e. one

kilometer ahead from Chailla bifurcation point.

6(ii). Status Report further indicates that water

supply was executed between December, 2023 to

September 2024. Status Report indicates that matter

is yet to be examined/verified by police authorities

from the official of Jal Shakti Vibhag, Sub Division

Theog/Koti, which is underway. Para 4 of Status

Report indicates that Water Supply Notebooks

maintained by the officials of Jal Shakti Vibhag shows

lack of supervision, as all the entries appear to have

been made in one go and not on regular basis.

Misrepresentation of facts, unverifiable trip records of

tankers, fake vehicle registration number in the bill 2025:HHC:4171 )

create doubt on integrity of the officials of the Jal

Shakti Vibhag department. Status Report reveals

that discrepancies have been noticed in the water

distribution notebook maintained by field staff and

water bill created by Junior Engineer of Jal Shakti

Vibhag department. Even variation in trips of

vehicle(s) vis-à-vis bill raised for which payment was

made is being collected from the officials of Jal Shakti

Vibhag and these records are required to be sent to

SFSL analysis. However, Status Report reveals that the

payments were made, after bills were verified by

Assistant Engineer of Jal Shakti Vibhag concerned.

6(iii). Perusal of averments in Para 6(i) and (ii)

supra and the Status Report dated 5.2.2025 does

not indicate any prima-facie case against the

petitioner. Even no reasonable grounds exist against

the petitioner at this stage. Even the accusation

against petitioner appears to be highly doubtful when,

the Status Report indicates that payments were made

to Contractors [including bail petitioner] by the

SDO(C)-cum-SDM Theog, after due verification of 2025:HHC:4171 )

bills by Assistant Engineer concerned. Even the

accusation is yet to be investigated and thereafter

tested, examined and proved during the trial, if any,

in accordance with law. Moreover, the accusation is

being examined/scrutinized then, the concession of

bail cannot be denied to the petitioner, at this stage.

PETITIONER JOINED AND COOPERATING WITH INVESTIGATING AGENCIES:

6(iv) Para 10(ii) of Status Report indicates that

investigation is in progress and bail petitioner [Rohit

Beakta] has joined investigation. On query by this

Court, Learned State Counsel, affirms these facts that

petitioner has joined and is cooperating with the

Investigating Agencies as on day, in pursuance to

orders of interim pre-arrest bail passed by this Court

on 5.2.2025.

PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 CANNOT BE CURTAILED-RESTRICTED-TAKEN AWAY ON MERE ACCUSATIONS:

6(v). Bail petitioner has a right for bail at this

stage, for the reason, that the object of bail is

neither punitive nor preventative. Mere accusation 2025:HHC:4171 )

- 10 -

cannot deprive the petitioner of his personal liberty

and that too by way of a punishment. Even restriction

on personal liberty available under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India cannot be taken away or

denied or curtailed, when, the material on record

does not reveal that any prima-facie case or reasonable

grounds exist against the petitioner, at this stage.

PRESUMPTION OF GUILT CANNOT BE INFERRED:WHEN NEITHER ANY PRIMA FACIE CASE NOR REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST AGAINST PETITIONER IN STATUS REPORT:

6(vi). Petitioner is entitled for enlargement on

bail, for the reason that presumption of guilt cannot

be inferred, whereas, the presumption in criminal law,

is that an accused including the petitioner is to be

innocent unless proved guilty. Even Status Report

indicates that investigation is still underway and

nothing cogent and concrete adversial has been

reported by State Authorities in the Status Report

against the bail petitioner, at this stage.

7. Perusal of the facts in Paras 6(i) to 6(vi)

supra, support the case of the petitioner in view of the

principles mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2025:HHC:4171 )

- 11 -

regarding curtailment of personal liberty to be violative

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India coupled with

the fact that object of bail is to ensure presence of an

accused in investigation and Trial thereafter and the

fact that the denial of bail can neither be preventative

not punitive in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024,

titled Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of

Maharashta and another, in Manish Sisodia vs

Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal)

No.8781 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024, in

Criminal Appeal No.______of 2024 [Arising out of

SLP (Criminal) No.10778 of 2024], titled as

Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of

Enforcement and connected matter, in Criminal

Appeal No.4011 of 2024, in Re: V. Senthil Balaji

Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of

Enforcement and in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of

2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.13870 of 2024,

titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of

Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024 SCC Online SC

3729, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be 2025:HHC:4171 )

- 12 -

enlarged on bail in this case.

NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:

8. Status Report does not indicate any past

criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the

absence of any criminal antecedents, the denial of

concession of bail shall certainly amount to depriving

and curtailing the personal liberty of petitioner

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India.

BAIL ON PRINCIPLE OF PARITY:

9. Notably, one co-accused namely Neem

Chand has been released on bail by the Learned

Special Judge (Forest), Shimla on 25.02.2025. In

these circumstances, once a co-accused has been

enlarged on bail then, the petitioner who being a

Contractor had supplied water through tankers is

entitled for parity in treatments when nothing

incriminating is found against him, at this stage as per

Status Report and accordingly, the claim for bail, on

the principle of parity has weight and the same is

accordingly granted.

2025:HHC:4171 )

- 13 -

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:

10. Status Reports filed by State Authorities

have neither pointed out any adversarial

circumstances nor placed any material on record,

at this stage, to infer that after release on bail,

the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence

or may cause any inducement threat or promise to

any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the

case. However, the apprehension if any, of

the State Authorities can be safeguarded, at this stage

by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.

          NOTHING     ADVERSARIAL    REGARDING
          OBSTRUCTING        OR ATTEMPTING  TO
          THWARTING JUSTICE:

11. Status Reports filed by State Authorities

have neither pointed out any adversarial

circumstances nor placed any cogent and convincing

material on record, at this stage, to infer that after

release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or

thwart the cause of justice in any manner. In absence

of any material, the plea of petitioner for bail deserves 2025:HHC:4171 )

- 14 -

to be accepted, in instant case.

NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT:

12. In order to safeguard the rights of bail

petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of

State Authorities that the bail petitioner may flee away

[notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension

has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, in the

peculiar facts of this case, this Court imposes

stringent conditions, in later part of this bail order.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:

13. In view of the above discussion and for

the reasons recorded hereinabove and upon

considering the facts and circumstances and the

material on record and the mandate of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court supra, this Court is of the considered

view, that the orders dated 5.2.2025 granting interim

pre-arrest bail, are made absolute and the instant

petition is allowed; with directions to State

Authorities to treat the petitioner [Rohit Beakta], on

bail, subject to observance of the following conditions:-

2025:HHC:4171 )

- 15 -

(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Rohit Beakta] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- {Rs Fifty Thousand} with two sureties on furnishing similar bond amount each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 03.03.2025 and on subsequent dates as and when called/directed to do so by the Investigating Officer;

(iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Investigating Officer, in view of this order;

(iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ;

(v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-

Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court;

(vi) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court;

(vii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(viii) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case;

(ix) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this order in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after;

(x) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order;

2025:HHC:4171 )

- 16 -

14. It is clarified that any observations made

hereinabove shall not be construed as findings either

for the purposes of investigation or trial, which shall

proceed, in accordance with law, without being

prejudiced by the observations.

In aforesaid terms, the petition is allowed

and all pending miscellaneous application(s) shall

stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge February 28, 2025 [himani]