Bhartendu Gupta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 2 of 2023, dated 21.7.2023 was registered at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The petitioner was posted as Senior Assistant in H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla since 22.1.2020. As per the FIR, Anand Prakash Verma and Manoj Kumar Gupta submitted exorbitant medical reimbursement bills amounting to ₹9,45,982/- and ₹25,53,252/-. The bills were not genuine. The police registered two FIRs — FIR No. 2 of 2023 and FIR No. 3 of 2023. It was found during the investigation that the prescription slips, bills, OPD slips and invoices were not genuine. Manoj Kumar Gupta made a statement that he had given the bills to the petitioner, who used to return the same for reimbursement. Manoj Kumar Gupta used to pay 20% of the received amount to the petitioner. A similar statement was made by Anand Prakash Verma. The police seized the laptop and desktop from the premises and the office of the petitioner. The police are investigating both the FIRs simultaneously. Manoj Kumar Gupta is trying to shift his liability upon the petitioner. He had approached the petitioner to seek financial help. The petitioner had advanced a friendly loan after withdrawing the money from his General Provident Funds (GPF). Manoj Kumar Gupta repaid the amount. The Investigating Officer is misinterpreting this fact. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest. He is innocent. He is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the petition. The arrest of the petitioner will have serious repercussions on his career. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

The State filed a status report asserting that a complaint was received in the office of the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau regarding the fraudulent withdrawal of the medical reimbursement by Anand Prakash Verma and Manoj Kumar Gupta. The police investigated the complaint and found that the prescription slips, medical charges, reimbursement forms, OPD charges slips and bills/invoice memos were not signed by the Medical Superintendent and other Doctors. They never treated the patients mentioned in the bills. Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (IGMCH) did not issue the OPD slips. Anand Prakash Verma, the claimant, made a statement that the bills were being passed by the present petitioner and he (Anand Prakash) was paying 20% of the bill amount to the petitioner. The police seized the Desktop and Laptop during the investigation. Swaran Medical Store, Chauhan Medical Store, S. Medicos and New Medicos were issued notices under Section 91 of Cr. PC. No bill was stated to have been issued by Swaran Medical Store and Chauhan Medical Store. No medical store by the name of Manoj Medical Store was found at Sanjauli where it was stated to be located as per the cash memo/bill. The petitioner is to be interrogated. The original record is to be taken into possession. The petitioner had also prepared the forged medical bills of other employees who are yet to be interrogated. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Bhairav Gupta and Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocates for the petitioner and Ms Archna Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that investigation into the FIR No. 2 of 2023 and FIR No. 3 of 2023 are being conducted simultaneously by the police. The police have seized the record. The pre-arrest bail petition of the petitioner in the other FIR was dismissed and police had sufficient time to interrogate the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. The petitioner is a Government servant and his career would be spoiled by his custody. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

Ms. Archna Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a white coloured crime which was committed after due deliberation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the involvement of the petitioner and recovery of the seals used by the petitioner. The petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation; therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

The status report clearly shows that the co-accused Anand Prakash Verma has implicated the present petitioner which would give sufficient material to the police to carry out further investigation against the petitioner. The bills were not found to be issued by the medical stores by whom they were stated to have been issued. The police have yet to recover the pen drive and the seals that were used for preparing the forged medical bills. The amount of medical reimbursement is huge. The payment of one of the accused, namely, Manoj Kumar Gupta to the present petitioner was not disputed in the petition and it was claimed that it was towards the repayment of the loan advanced to him. This fact is yet to be verified. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the manner of its commission, the plea of the police that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required has to be accepted as correct.

It was submitted that the police had sufficient time to interrogate the petitioner in another FIR. This plea cannot be accepted. The police have specifically stated that the seals and the pen drive used for forging the bills are yet to be recovered. There is nothing to doubt this version of the police. Hence, the plea that no useful purpose would be served by custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not acceptable.

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. It was observed:-

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-orientated than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender”

A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032wherein it was observed:

“13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection, afforded by a bail order insulates the suspect and he could thwart interrogation reducing it to futile rituals. But, it must be also kept in mind, that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.”

pre-arrest dismissed.

In view of the above the petitioner is not entitled to bail, hence present petition fails and the same is

The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.