Jabna Chauhan vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) seeking bail in case FIR No. 29 of 2022, dated 8.4.2022, registered in Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

Status Report stands filed on 21.4.2022 and 28.4.2022. Record was also been made available.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 8.4.2022, statement of Tej Ram, Secretary Gram Panchyat Tharjoon was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that in the year 2019, fourteen irrigation tanks were approved to be constructed in Gram Panchyat under MGNREGA. For purchasing cement for these tanks, on 19.5.2020, Bill Form was approved and sent to Civil Supplies Office, Thunag and payment with respect to that was made online on 24.6.2020 to the Civil Supplies Department. Thereafter villagers in favour of whom irrigation tanks were approved, started to inquire in Panchyat Office for starting construction of tanks demanding cement for that purpose. In the meanwhile, new Panchayat was constituted and Anjana Kumari Pradhan and Dola Ram Up Pradhan went to the Civil Supplies Office in March, 2021 to collect the cement. On 26.3.2021, 1281 cement bags were demanded from Civil Supplies Office. In response thereto, from the Office of Civil Supplies, it was informed that 986 cement bags for construction of 14 irrigation tanks were received by previous Pradhan Jabna Chauhan (petitioner), i.e. on 25.7.2020 (240 bags), 26.7.2020 (240 bags), 14.8.2020 (200 bags), 22.8.2020 (66 bags) and 5.10.2020 (240 bags), whereupon present Pradhan Anjana Kumari asked ex Pradhan Jabna Chauhan to explain, but in reply she told that she had deposited cement as well as bills of cement in the Panchyat. As per prosecution case, petitioner had neither deposited the cement nor bills of cement in the Panchyat and, therefore, by passing resolution No. 2 on 30.6.2021, Gram Panchyat resolved to inquire into the matter and register FIR with respect to 986 bags of cement related to 14 irrigation tanks. Thereafter Panchayat Inspector inquired into the matter. Lastly complainant prayed for taking legal action against ex-pradhan Jabna Chauhan.

Finding a prima facie case under Sections 405 and 409 IPC, FIR was registered on 8.4.2022 in Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.

During investigation, bills for carriage issued by Maha Kali Goods Transport, verified by petitioner Jabna Chauhan, Technical Assistant Vickey and four other person/Members Panchayat by putting their signatures on these bills, duly signed by proprietor of Maha Kali Goods Transport Nater Singh, were produced by the complainant Panchyat Secretary to the Police claiming that these bills were handed over to him by petitioner with further submission that he had neither entered these bills in the records of Panchyat not did pay the fair to Nater Singh as cement was never received in the Panchyat.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that statement of Nater Singh has also been recorded, wherein he has stated that he has not been paid freight charges of transporting grit and sand for 42 truck loads and he has been asked by the Investigating Officer to supply his log book by giving time to him for that purpose and further that as per investigation carried till date, it has come in the statement of persons who had signed these bills that petitioner Jabna Chauhan had asked them to sign on blank bills by saying that these were bills pertaining to transportation and purchase of sand and grit. According to the Investigating Officer, these bills were in possession of Secretary Gram Panchyat.

It has been further submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that delivery challans dated 25.7.2020, 26.7.2020, 14.8.2020, 22. 8.2020 and 5.10.2020 were never deposited by the petitioner in the Panchyat alongwith the bags of cement and now photocopies of these bills have been placed on record by the petitioner alongwith this petition whereas Investigating Officer has procured photocopies of these bills from the office of Civil Supplies Department Thunag and, therefore, he submits that after receiving the cement from the Civil Supplies Department, petitioner has misappropriated the cement by neither depositing the same in the Panchyat nor giving it to the villagers in whose favour 14 irrigation tanks were approved for construction and on the spot only one tank is almost complete, which has been allotted in favour of father of the petitioner and all other tanks are incomplete for want of supply of cement.

Record also reveals that after passing of resolution by the Panchyat, matter was referred to the Police in July 2021 and in response thereto vide communication dated 6.8.2021 SHO Police Station, Gohar had sent the matter to Development Block Officer, Gohar to inquire into the matter and to communicate as to whether allegations leveled are really correct or not, so as to enable the Police to take appropriate action at the earliest. In sequel to the aforesaid communication from the SHO Gohar, Block Development Officer conducted inquiry and submitted his inquiry report to SHO Police Station, Gohar on 16.3.2022 concluding therein that Ex Pradhan Jabna Chauhan, Ex Ward Members Yovraj, Daya Kumari, Tejwanti, Shiv Lal, Panchyat Secretary Tej Ram and Technical Assistant Vickey have flouted Rule 66(2) and 69 of H.P. Panchyati Raj (Finance, Budget, Account, Audit, Contract, Taxes and Allowances) Rules 2002 and, therefore, allegation leveled appears to be correct. After receiving the aforesaid communication statement of Secretary was recorded on 8.4.2022.

It is clam of the petitioner that after receiving the cement bags from Civil Supplies, these bags were deposited in the Panchyat in custody of Panchyat Secretary and thereafter it was duty of Panchyat Secretary to make entries in this regard in Panchyat record and to release the cement bags to the concerned persons, constructing irrigation tanks, and it was Panchyat Secretary who has misappropriated the cement and in case petitioner would have not deposited the cement in the Panchyat, then there was no occasion for her to deposit the original bills related to freight of transporting the said cement bags to Panchyat Secretary and further that in case cement was not deposited by the petitioner with the Panchyat Secretary, then there was no occasion for the Panchyat Secretary to receive and accept the bill of transportation charges submitted by present petitioner to him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that cement bags were received from Civil Supplies Corporation in July, August and October, 2020. In January, 2020 new Pradhan was elected, but it is case of the prosecution that Anjana Kumari visited the Civil Supplied Office and then came to know about receipt of Cement Bags by Ex Pradhan Jabna Chauhan, whereas Secretary claims that transportation bills were deposited with him by Ex Pradhan Jabna Chauhan, but he did not enter them in Panchyat record as no cement was received. There is no reason assigned for not disclosing this fact to new Pradhan Anjana Kumari when she was inquiring and searching for cement supply from Civil Supplies Corporation, rather Panchyat Secretary kept these bills with him till the investigation was started after registration of FIR instead of forwarding complaint immediately on receiving these bills. In case prosecution story is true, then definitely Panchyat Secretary would have informed Anjana Kumari or prior to that to other higher authorities about receipt of these bills from Ex Pradhan Jabna Chauhan, but without deposit of cement in Panchyat store. Thus, it has been contended that as a matter of fact not the petitioner, but Panchyat Secretary, who has turned up now is complainant, is main culprit, who has disposed of 986 cement bags. It has further been submitted that in case petitioner is an accused, then Nater Singh, Technical Assistant Vickey, Yovraj, Daya Kumari, Tejwanti, Shiv Lal (Ward Members) are also accused for commission of offence as according to prosecution, they have signed blank bills at the instance of Pradhan. It is case of the petitioner that for political reasons, she has been targeted to harass, discourage and to disrepute her.

The Investigating Officer present in the Court submits that at present investigation is being carried out only on the basis of statement of Panchyat Secretary, wherein petitioner has been named as an accused for misappropriating and disposing of 986 cement bags and Nater Singh has been asked to provide his log book, but till date he has not provided his log book and further that statement of Vickey, Yuvraj and Daya Kumari and others have been recorded.

It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that had there been no political reason then inquiry against all, including Panchyat Secretary, would have been made and truth would have surfaced, but launching of prosecution only against the petitioner, is for political consideration, but not to ascertain the truth.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced photocopies of Bill No. 97, signed by Nater Singh and petitioner Jabna Chauhan only, which is not blank, but filled, with another copy of bill duly signed by Technical Assistant and four Ward Members. First copy has been signed by Jabna Chauhan and Nater Singh and another photocopy contain the signatures of Technical Assistant and other four Ward Members, which indicates that at the time of signing the bill by Technical Assistant and four Ward Members, it was not blank, but was filled.

Petitioner has joined the investigation and is ready to join the same in future also as and when called for that purpose and also to furnish bail bonds in case she is enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that petitioner is having reputation in the area having deep roots in the society and there is no possibility of her fleeing from justice.

Without commenting upon merits of allegations and counter allegations, but taking into consideration material placed before me and also considering the factors and parameters required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I find that petitioner may be enlarged on bail at this stage.

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within two weeks from today and upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure presence of the petitioner at the time of trial:-

(i) That the petitioner shall join the investigation and attend the Court as and when directed to do so by the Investigating Agency/Court;

(ii) that the petitioner shall 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 Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. She shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which she is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse her liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that she shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for their availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) she shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner, enlarged on bail, as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon her, her bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, he may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.