Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 8 (HP)

Gurmit Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-01-02

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ms Shaweta Thakur, is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record. 2. FIR 148 of 2013, dated 12.12.2013, under the provisions of 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. High Court of H.P. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17.12.2013, this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order has been extended from time to time. Petitioner has joined investigation. 3. It is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, petitioner has joined investigation and fully cooperated. 4. According to the police, petitioner issued an agricultural certificate dated 16.3.2012, without verifying the record. Petitioner alongwith his co-accused dishonestly cheated and committed criminal misconduct so as to fall within the ambit and scope of provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by issuing the said certificate. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner, who is a permanent resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh, has moveable and immoveable property within the State and has been a Government servant, has made out a case for grant of bail. 6. At this stage, what is to be seen is prima facie complicity of the petitioner in the crime; nature of the offence and the extent of punishment, which the petitioner would have High Court of H.P. to suffer in the event of his conviction. Undisputedly, his co-accused stands enlarged on bail. On the principle of parity, in the given circumstances, no other order can be passed. 7. Also, petitioner has placed on record material to show that his co-accused Seema had failed a suit for declaration before the Civil Court at Amb. A decree dated 10.2.2008 was passed in her favour, holding her to be owner of the land situated within the State of Himachal Pradesh. This judgment and decree pertains to the period when petitioner was not holding the charge as Naib Tehsildar. A decree dated 10.2.2008 was passed in her favour, holding her to be owner of the land situated within the State of Himachal Pradesh. This judgment and decree pertains to the period when petitioner was not holding the charge as Naib Tehsildar. Further, pursuant to this judgment and decree, entries in the revenue record, recording Seema to be owner of the land, were effected. Even, at that time, petitioner was not holding the charge of the Naib Tehsildar of the area. Significantly, the entries were recorded in the year 2011. Much thereafter, Seema applied for issuance of an agricultural certificate. It is at this point in time that petitioner took charge as Naib Tehsildar of the area concerned. Based on the report submitted by the Patwari, to the effect that Seema was owning land within the State of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner issued the agricultural certificate. 8. Thus, keeping in view the entire attending circumstances and taking a holistic view of the matter, petitioner has made out a case in his favour. 9. This Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during High Court of H.P. investigation. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 17.12.2013, as extended from time to time, is made absolute. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time Challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 9. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any High Court of H.P. observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. Copy Dasti.