Gurdeep Kaur vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.12/2011 dated 23.05.2011, registered at Police Station State C.I.D.,Bharari,Shimla, under Sections 465, 466, 471, 201, 120-B IPC.

It has been stated in the application that the petitioner has been arrested on 04.07.2011. The petitioner is employed as Circle Inspector in Co-operative Circle, Behdala, Co-operative Societies, Tehsil and District Una. The petitioner is innocent. She has committed no offence. She has been implicated in the case on false, baseless and frivolous grounds due to political rivalry.

It has been stated that the allegations against the petitioner are that C.W.P.No. 2936 of 2011 was filed by one Kamal Dev and others in the High Court on the allegations that despite filing nomination papers, they were ousted from the election process of Managing Committee of Basoli Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited by petitioner Circle Inspector. It was alleged that they had filed nomination papers with the Returning Officer on 19.04.2011 and the same were scrutinized on 20.04.2011 and found correct. However, in the final list of eligible candidates issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the name of Kamal Dev was not in the list. It was alleged that petitioner acted with malafide intention with a view to favour some candidates.

The High Court directed the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry and submit report. The observation was also made for registration of regular criminal case. The Director General of Police forwarded relevant documents to Director Forensic Science Laboratory. It was found that handwriting on the nomination form and certificate were of same person and, therefore, FIR under Sections 465, 466 and 471 IPC was registered against the petitioner and she was arrested. The petitioner filed some bail applications and lastly her bail application being Cr.M.P.(M) No. 628 of 2011 was rejected by this Court on 02.09.2011. In the order dated 02.09.2011, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to move for bail after charge stage.

It has been stated that in Civil Writ Petition on 03.08.2011, this Court had clarified that neither the pendency of the writ petition nor any observation made in any of the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition shall stand in the way of competent Court considering the application for bail on merits. It has been stated that challan has been filed in the Court and the charge has been framed on 21.10.2011. The continuous custody of the petitioner is not required.

The petitioner is a woman and mother of two school-going children. The father-in-law of the petitioner has died on 14.09.2011. The mother-in-law of the petitioner is also not maintaining good health. The petitioner herself is undergoing pain and agony and is being treated for depression. The petitioner is being un-necessarily kept in judicial custody and the same amounts to conviction without trial. The police has investigated the matter from wrong angle. The petitioner has not committed any crime nor she has forged any document. The prayer has been made for admitted the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been stated that as per F.S.L.report on the nomination papers of Balwant Singh two signatures were found forged. The nomination paper was found written by Karnail Singh and on certificate/courter-foil signatures of Balwant Singh were not found, however, the name and address was found to be written by Karnail Singh and signed by Gurdeep Kaur. The receipt was found written by witness Karam Chand, but issued by Gurdeep Kaur. On the nomination paper of Kamal Dev and certificate/counter-foil, name and address was found written by Karnail Singh, but signatures of Kamal Dev were not found on certificate/counter-foil. The counter-foil/certificate was found signed by Gurdeep Kaur. The receipt was also found signed by Gurdeep Kaur which was written by witness Karam Chand. On the nomination paper of Amrik Singh instead of three signatures, two signatures were found and on the nomination paper signatures were found to be put by Karnail Singh. On certificate/counter-foil, signatures of Amrik Singh were not found, these were found to be written by Karnail Singh and signed by Gurdeep Kaur. The receipt is also signed by Gurdeep Kaur which was prepared by witness Karam Chand.

It has been stated that Gurdeep Kaur in connivance with Karnail Singh prepared forged nomination papers, counter-foils, certificates. Karnail Singh has been arrested on 30.09.2011. The bail application of Karnail Singh has been rejected by this Court on 18.10.2011. The case after framing of the charges has now been fixed on 30.11.2011 for recording prosecution evidence in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Una. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

I have heard both the sides and perused the record. The petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2011. There are in all 36 witnesses. It has been submitted that it will take long time for recording prosecution evidence. The further detention of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is not keeping good health. Her father-in-law has died on 14.09.2011. The mother-in-law of the petitioner is also not keeping good health. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, on the point that while deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. In the same judgment, it has been held of course delay is not only the factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. 10. The Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, has held as follows:

...In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail.

The Supreme Court in Masroor Vs. State of U.P. and Another, has held that there is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned.

The charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 465, 466, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The offence u/s 466 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court vide order dated 02.09.2011 has given liberty to the petitioner to move for bail after the charge stage.

The filing of the challan has been noticed in the judgment dated 02.09.2011. In the order dated 02.09.2011, it has been observed:

The challan has been filed on 1.9.2011 as per status report. The allegations against the petitioner continue to be very serious. The petitioner dared to tamper the record during election process. It is not safe to release her on bail at this stage. The investigating agency has shown apprehension that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then she will influence the prosecution witnesses. It is not in the public interest to release the petitioner at this stage, which may shake the confidence of the people keeping in view the gravity of offence. In these circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail. Hence, the bail application is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move for bail after charge stage.

The position after framing of the charge has not been changed, rather by framing the charge against the petitioner, prima-facie, the allegations against petitioner have been re-affirmed. In case the petitioner is not keeping good health, then it is the duty of the respondent to take care of her health by providing her proper medical care. It is unfortunate that the father-in-law of the petitioner has died. The health of mother-in-law of the petitioner is no ground for releasing the petitioner on bail keeping in view the allegations against petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner by finishing the trial as early as possible and to conduct the trial preferably on day-to-day basis. However, the date already fixed in the trial for recording prosecution evidence need not be changed. A copy of this judgment be sent to trial Court for compliance.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.