Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 150 (HP)

BARKH RAM CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-03-13

SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J (Oral):- Apprehending his arrest, in FIR No.8/09 dated 6.3.2009, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468. 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, allegedly withdrawing around one crore rupees under the CAT Plan of the Forest Department of Forest Division Theog without any muster-roll or its actual expenditure during the month, when he was under transfer, the petitioner has applied for seeking pre-arrest bail by moving the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notice of the bail petition was taken by the learned Assistant Advocate General. The report has been filed. The release on bail has been objected to. 2. In fact the petitioner was posted as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). Vide Notification No.FFE-A(B)6-5/2008 dated 28.2.2009, he was transferred to some other Forest Division. On coming to know about his transfer a day earlier i.e. 27.2.2009, he signed/ issued Cheque worth Rs.25 lacs, in the name of the Range Officer, Theog to meet the government expenses during the month of February, 2009 under the Catchment Area Treatment Plan (CAT) on the memo submitted by another accused Puran Chand sharma, Range Officer. On 28.2.2009, the petitioner issued another cheque worth Rs.35 lacs in the name of said Range Officer against for incurring the expenses during the month of February, 2009. Both the cheques worth Rupees 60 lakhs, were drawn on the same date from the State Cooperative Bank, Theog branch. 3. A complaint was received in the office Superintendent of Police (Enforcement) (SV & ACB), Khalini, Shimla with respect to the misappropriation of the government funds to the tune of Rs.1,05 crores. Precisely, it was alleged that about Rs.3 crores was sanctioned by the Government under CAT Plan for Theog Division and the petitioner issued the aforesaid cheques in connivance with the other forest officials without even receiving the single muster-roll bill against the sanctioned payment of Rs. 35 lacs. The request was made to seize the records. Precisely, it was alleged that about Rs.3 crores was sanctioned by the Government under CAT Plan for Theog Division and the petitioner issued the aforesaid cheques in connivance with the other forest officials without even receiving the single muster-roll bill against the sanctioned payment of Rs. 35 lacs. The request was made to seize the records. It was also alleged that the Forest Guard Incharge of Jugo Beat was running a joinery Unit in the name of Tulsi Ram Sharma at Ralu Ghat (Theog) where he was selling Government timber as his own and further more than a lac was disbursed for constructing the Check dam by employing Gurkha labour which was non-existent and some of the muster-rolls were fictitiously prepared by the forest officials. Thus a request was made to register a case. 4. On this complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.), along with his party conducted the spot inquiry in the presence of the forest officials. During the inquiry, the Range Officer could produce the bills/ expenses documents to the tune of Rs.38,00,000/-approximately. There was not even a single bill or voucher for the month of January/ February, 2009, 5. A cash worth Rs. 42 lacs was recovered from the chest of the Range Officer and Rs.19 lacs were seized from the personal bag of Puran Chand Sharma, Range Officer, Theog. 6. As against the cheques issued on 27.2.2009 and 28.2.2009 amounting to Rs. 60 lacs, the sanctioned voucher which were seized were only worth Rs.38 lacs. 7. The fake entries of the labour in the muster rolls were prima-facie detected. Rs.24,00,000/- were shown to have been disbursed to Nepali labour, in the month of February, 2009, whereas, investigation revealed that neither the petitioner D.F.O. nor the Range Officer had released any amount before 27.2.2009. 8. The petitioner is allegedly placed the order of supply of 3 Metric tons of barbed wire on 27.2.2009 to M/s Shiv Enterprises, Solan, whereas, the quantity and the bill was found for 6 Metric Tons, for which no demand was received from the field staff to purchase the said material. 9. Some of the bills/ documents were taken into possession which reveals that these documents were forged to adjust the payment of lacs of rupees. 10. 9. Some of the bills/ documents were taken into possession which reveals that these documents were forged to adjust the payment of lacs of rupees. 10. Against this background, Mr.J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has no case for the pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is required for sustained interrogation. 11. Contra, Shri B.C. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been made a scape-goat in the matter and a false case has been registered against him. It is submitted that during the interim-bail, he has joined the investigation. According to him the petitioner had issued the cheques in accordance with the procedure adopted in the department. The petitioner stands transferred and no recovery is to be effected from him. However, the petitioner being a responsible officer shall abide by all the conditions imposed by the court. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record of investigation. 13. It is well settled that the consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest. 14. The petitioner is a Divisional Forest Officer of the State Forest Department, posted at Theog. He is alleged to have issued the cheques worth Rs.60 lacs from the CAT Plan fund in the name of the Range Officer without receiving the request specifically for the release of the amount to the tune of Rs.38 lacs from any quarter. Even after his transfer, he is alleged to have placed the order for the purchase of 3 Metric ton of barbed wire without any demand from the field staff. Prima-facie there is a nexus of the petitioner with the commission of the offence. 15. The investigation of this case is in progress. 16. It has been held in State vs. Anil Sharma [(1997)7 SCC 187] that the custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. 17. The nature and serious charges of syphoning the CAT PLAN fund in lakhs/ crores is alleged against the petitioner in connivance with other forest officials. In the instant case, the proposed acquisition, to my mind, does not appear to have been actuated by any malafide against the petitioner and the petitioner has also not alleged so. 18. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the stage of investigation, I do not find that the petitioner has any case for pre-arrest bail. Definitely, his custodial and sustained investigation is required. Therefore, the petition for seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.