Phoola Devi And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The matters are taken up through video conference.

The present bail applicants have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, in the

event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 158 of 2020, dated 09.11.2020, under Sections 420, 120B, 406, 409, 467 and 471 IPC, registered in Police Station

Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.

As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are permanent residents of the place and

neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 09.11.2020, police received a complaint from the office of Block Development Officer,

Development Block Baijnath, Kangra (complainant), wherein it is alleged that during the preliminary inspection, irregularities were found in

MENREGA work in Gram Panchayat Bhattu Paanjal. It is also alleged in the complaint that the Gram Pradhan and Panchayat Secretary have

connived with each other and misappropriated the government money. Lastly, it is alleged in the complaint that action, as per the law, be taken against

Phoola Devi and Santosh Devi (petitioners herein), Panchayat Pradhan and Panchayat Scretary, respectively. Upon the complaint, police registered a

case under the apt Sections of IPC and the investigation ensued. As per the police, some records qua the construction works undertaken during 2016

to October, 2020, in the above Panchayat, have been procured and rest is being procured. Investigation is in its initial stage and after receipt of entire

records, the petitioners will be associated in the investigation. Lastly, it is prayed that the applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as prima facie the

petitioners were involved in the alleged irregularities and misappropriation of government money, in case, at this stage, they are enlarged on bail, they

may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including

the police reports, carefully.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners are innocent and they are neither in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are permanent residents of the place. He has further argued that the petitioners are

ready and willing to join and co-operate in the investigation and also ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted. It is

argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, as no purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, so

the bail applications may be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the

petitioners were instrumental in misappropriating the government money and also in the wake of the fact that glaring irregularities were found in the

records pertaining to MENREGA work, prima facie the petitioners, being Pradhan and Secretary of the concerned Panchayat, have committed a

serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from

justice, so the applications of the petitioners be dismissed.

In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of the place, thus, neither in a

position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, as

they are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when asked by the police and also ready and willing to co-operate in the investigation. It is

further argued that sending the petitioners behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose, so the petitions be allowed and the petitioners be

enlarged on bail.

At this stage, considering the nature of the offence, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, the fact

that earlier also some dispute had arisen with the complainant on the complaint made by one of the petitioners, considering the fact that the petitioners

are permanent residents of the place, thus, neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, the

petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation and co-operate in it, the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, the

petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, and also the fact that sending the petitioners behind the

bars will not serve any fruitful purpose and also considering all the facets of the case and without discussing the same elaborately, this Court finds that

the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, in this case, is required to be exercised

in their favour. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 158 of 2020,

dated 09.11.2020, under Sections 420, 120B, 406, 409, 467 and 471 IPC, registered in Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released

on bail forthwith in this case, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) each with one surety each in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioners 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 Court.

In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.

Copy dasti.