Shashi Pal vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh Judge

This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 6 of 2011 dated 13.11.2011 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station, SV & ACB, Una.

It has been stated that the petitioner is working as Forest Guard and posted at Swan Project, Una under Forest Department. The petitioner is not having good relations with one Smt. Monika working as Watershed Development Coordinator at Una in the same project where the petitioner is posted. Smt. Monika had been making false complaints against the petitioner to various authorities. One year back inquiry was got conducted regarding the assets of the petitioner but no illegality was found and the case was closed. Smt. Monika is an influential woman and she managed to get registered a case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The police had been making inquiries against the petitioner for the last more than one month and petitioner has given all the required information to the police. The case against the petitioner is false. The petitioner is innocent. The petitioner in view of registration of the case now apprehends his arrest. The petitioner is ready to join investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of endorsement No. 8520 dated 11.11.2011 on the complaint of Kumari Monika. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 11,87,507/- against his known source of income and has committed offence punishable u/s 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 14.11.2011 the house of the petitioner was searched at Hamirpur, his rented house at village Kotla was searched on 15.11.2011. The authorities have been requested to supply the record and assess the house of the petitioner at Hamirpur so also supply the details of the bank accounts of the petitioner, his wife Urmila Devi, daughter Sapna Devi and son Neeraj Kumar. The details of the salary of the petitioner have also been asked. It has been stated that the investigation is at the initial stage and the comparison can be made only after receiving the details but as per complaint disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 11,87,507/- have been found. It has also come during investigation that the petitioner has purchased about 24 kanals land in Tehsil Amb in the name of his wife Urmila Devi, about 1 1/2 kanal land at Hamirpur again in the name of wife Urmila Devi and constructed a three storeyed house thereon. The details of expenditure on the education of the children and car purchased by the petitioner are also to be taken. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the bail petition.

I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. In the status report, it has not been stated that the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation nor there is any specific allegation that any specific recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The custodial interrogation for specific purpose has not been elaborated. It appears the allegations against the petitioner are documents based, till now there is no allegation of specific demand of bribe against the petitioner. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

In view of above, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 6 of 2011 dated 13.11.2011 under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station, SV & ACB, Una, he is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

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