Smt. Gurdeep Kaur vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application, u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the Petitioner on bail in FIR No. 12/2011 dated 23.5.2011, registered at State CID Police Station, Bharari, District Shimla, under Sections 465, 466, 471, 201 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused.

It has been stated in the application that Petitioner was arrested on 4.7.2011, she was produced before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, who remanded her in judicial custody. The Petitioner is employed as Circle Inspector in Co-operative Circle Behdala, Co-operative Societies, Tehsil and District Una. It has been alleged that Petitioner is innocent, she has committed no offence. The Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case on frivolous grounds due to political rivalry. Kamal Dev and others filed CWP No. 2936 of 2011 in the High court and the High Court directed the Director General of Police to conduct an inquiry and submit the report. The Director General of Police had forwarded the relevant documents to the Director, FSL, who found the handwritings on the nomination forms and certificate of same person. In these circumstances, the case came to be registered against the Petitioner. The bail application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una on 6.7.2011.

The Petitioner filed Cr.MP (M) No. 502 of 2011 in this Court, which was withdrawn on 13.7.2011 by the Petitioner with liberty to file fresh. On 2.8.2011 in CWP No. 2936 of 2011, the High Court has made it clear that neither the pendency of writ petition nor any observation made in any of the interim order passed by the court in the writ petition shall stand in the way of competent authority considering the application of bail on merits.

The Petitioner had filed another bail application, which was dismissed by Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una on 3.8.2011. The bail application filed by Petitioner before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una was dismissed on 10.8.2011. The Petitioner has small school going children and aged mother-in-law and father-in-law. The Petitioner is not keeping good health. The prayer has been made for releasing the Petitioner on bail.

The bail application has been opposed by the Learned Addl. Advocate General. She has submitted that Petitioner has committed serious offence. In the status report, it has been stated that as per FSL report, the signatures of the Petitioner were found on changed nomination papers, similarly signatures of Arbinder, Balbir and Balwant were found forged. The challan has been submitted on 1.9.2011. The Petitioner is law graduate. She has intentionally destroyed the record. In case she is released on bail, she can influence the witnesses. The Learned Addl. Advocate General has thus prayed for dismissal of bail application.

I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that some of the offences are bailable, the investigation in the case is complete. The challan has been submitted in the court and, therefore, detention of the Petitioner is not necessary. Simply because investigation in the case is complete and challan has been submitted in the court in itself is no ground for releasing the accused on bail in every case.

The Petitioner was entrusted with the job of Returning Officer. The allegations against the Petitioner are of tampering the record as well as destruction of record. The Petitioner being public servant and law graduate instead of conducting the election in fair manner has tampered the record. The allegations of tampering of record during election process by the Returning Officer under no circumstance can be taken lightly. The Petitioner is a woman and for this reason her offence cannot be diluted.

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.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case.