Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 446 (HP)

Keshav Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-22

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Applicant-Keshav Ram, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ' BNSS '), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated 07.02.2025, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act’), with Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kullu, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case, and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. 3. The applicant has termed the entire case of the prosecution, as concocted one and without any substance, as, nothing has been recovered from him. 4. As per the applicant, the investigation in the present case is almost complete and nothing is to be recovered from him, as such, no useful purposed would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody. 5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application before Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., however, his application has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 22.2.2025. 6. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 7. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled for the relief of bail on the ground of parity also, as his co- accused, Bhavita Tandon and Pankaj Kumar have already been released by this Court, vide orders dated 06.03.2025 and 19.03.2025. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 7.2.2025, complainant Prittam Chand, has produced a complaint before the Dy.SP, Incharge Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, against Bhavita Tandon, upon which, the FIR, in question, has been registered. 9.1. In the said complaint, it has been mentioned by the complainant that he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and is running a hotel in the name and style of ‘Snow Peck Retreat’ comprising 32 rooms. 9.2. 9.1. In the said complaint, it has been mentioned by the complainant that he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and is running a hotel in the name and style of ‘Snow Peck Retreat’ comprising 32 rooms. 9.2. On 28.11.2024, Inspector Pankaj, Department of Health Safety and Regulation, Kullu, came there for checking and he had collected the samples of eatables, oil and papad. On 16.1.2025, Bhavita Tandon, Assistant Commissioner, Food Safety Kullu, issued two notices. One notice was with regard to the misbranded papad and another was with regard to unsafe cooking oil. The notices were required to be replied within 30 days 9.3. Thereafter, in order to get the information with regard to the notices, the complainant has deputed his nephew to the office of Bhavita Tandon, on 4.2.2025, when Bhavita Tandon had demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as bribe to settle the matter. This fact has been apprised to the complainant by his nephew. 9.4. Since, the complainant was not interested to pay the said bribe, as such, he had gone to the Police Station, SV & ACB, Kullu, where voice recorder and camera eyewear were given to record the demand of bribe. 9.5. Thereafter, the complainant has submitted the recording, in which, she has reduced the demand of bribe to Rs.1,10,000/-, to settle the matter, involved in the notices, upon which, the police has registered the case. 9.6. Thereafter, pre-trap proceedings were conducted on 9.2.2025, in the Circuit House, Kullu. The following persons were associated in the trap: i) Prittam Chand, complainant ii Inspector Ashok Kumar, PS SV&ACB, Kullu iii) Inspector Munish Kumar, PS SV&ACB, Mandi iv) SI Narayan Lal, PS SV&ACB, Kullu v) SI Sher Singh, PS SV&ACB, Mandi vi) Ct. Rajesh Kumar, PS SV&ACB, Kullu vii) HHG Kurm Dutt, PS SV&ACB, Kullu viii) HHLC Rekha, PS SV&ACB, Mandi ix) HHLC Raksha, SP Office, CR, Mandi 9.7. Apart from this, two independent witnesses namely; Hari Singh and Prince Korpal, were also associated. Thereafter, the currency of Rs.1,10,000/-, in the denomination of Rs.500/-, total 220 notes were handed over to complainant Prittam Chand to pay the amount to Bhavita Tandon. Thereafter, powder of phenolphthalein was applied on the currency notes. 9.8. On 7.2.2025, at about 01.00. Apart from this, two independent witnesses namely; Hari Singh and Prince Korpal, were also associated. Thereafter, the currency of Rs.1,10,000/-, in the denomination of Rs.500/-, total 220 notes were handed over to complainant Prittam Chand to pay the amount to Bhavita Tandon. Thereafter, powder of phenolphthalein was applied on the currency notes. 9.8. On 7.2.2025, at about 01.00. p.m., the team, under the leadership of Inspector Ashok Kumar, complainant Prittam Chand, shadow witness Hari Singh, independent witness Prince Korpal, as well as, other police official, reached at the spot i.e. Regional Hospital/Food Safety Office, Kullu 9.9. Complainant Prittam Chand was called by Bhavita Tandon, to Food Safety Office, Kullu. All the members of trap team were deputed at their respective places. Thereafter, after half an hour, complainant Prittam Chand had come out, as Bhavita Tandon want to talk with him in isolation. Thereafter, both of them reached at gallery and started talking with each other. 9.10. Thereafter, one another person was called by Bhavita Tandon on phone. His name has been disclosed by complainant, later on, as Pankaj Kumar, Food Safety Officer. Thereafter, Bhag Singh, Manager of the complainant also reached there. All the four had discussed the matter for half an hour. 9.11. Thereafter, Bhag Singh was asked to leave the said place. Subsequently, another person, wearing blue jacket, whose name has been disclosed by the complainant, as Keshav Ram (applicant), Class-IV employee of the office of the applicant, came there and all the four had gone to the office of Food Safety Department. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to the office of Pankaj, Food Safety Officer and given signal, which was decided earlier, that the amount has been paid. 9.12. Meanwhile, Keshav (applicant) came out from the office of Pankaj, who was caught by SI Sher Singh and Sub Inspector Narayan Lal. By that time, Bhavita Tandon, also came out and she was caught by Constable Raksha and Constable Rekha. 9.13. When, the vigilance team went to the office of Panka, no one was found there. He was directed to come to his office, on phone. By that time, Bhavita Tandon, also came out and she was caught by Constable Raksha and Constable Rekha. 9.13. When, the vigilance team went to the office of Panka, no one was found there. He was directed to come to his office, on phone. After sometime, he came to the office of the Bhavita Tandon, upon which, the complainant had disclosed that when they were discussing the matter in the gallery on ground floor, then, on the direction of Bhavita Tandon, the bribe money was handed over to Pankaj, whereas, Pankaj has insisted upon to hand over the said amount to Keshav (applicant). 9.14. When, Keshav (applicant) had gone to the office of Pankaj, complainant had handed over the bribe money to Keshav (applicant), on his demand. Thereafter, he put the said money in his right pocket of the jacket. 10. The other codal formalities were completed and all the three accused were arrested. 11. The accused persons have moved the application for bail, before the learned Special Judge, Kullu, however, the same application was dismissed on 22.2.2025. 12. As per the status report, except the present case, no other case is found to have been registered against the applicant. 13. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 14. The investigation, in the present case, is complete and the applicant is in judicial custody. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him, in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period. 15. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by the competent Court of law. 16. In the status report, no apprehension has been put forth to oppose the prayer for bail. 15. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by the competent Court of law. 16. In the status report, no apprehension has been put forth to oppose the prayer for bail. As per the status report, apart from ascertaining the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the following proceedings are yet to be conducted:- i) From the voice recorder, the recording is to be extracted by State Forensic Science Laboratory; ii voice samples of the accused are to be obtained; iii) voice samples are to be compared with the voice recorded in the voice recorder; iv) result from RFSL, Mandi, due to hand wash sample of Keshav, jacket and currency notes, is still awaited; and v) the mobile phone of the accused persons have been sent to SFSL Junga and result is still awaited. 17. So far as the above proceedings, which are yet to be conducted, in this case, are concerned, there is nothing on the file, at this stage, to show as to how the custody of the applicant would facilitate the police to conduct those proceedings. It is not the case of the police that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, in this case. 18. Bhavita Tandon and Pankaj Kumar, co- accused of the applicant, have already been released on bail vide orders dated 06.03.2025 and 19.03.2025, as such, on the ground of parity, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated 07.02.2025, registered, under Section 7 of the PC Act, with Police Station, SV & ACB, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.70,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. 20. This order of release, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :- “a) Applicant shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) Applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Office; and d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.” 21. Any of the observations made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case as these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present bail application. 22. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the bail applicant/petitioner. 23. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kullu, District Kullu through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 24. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kullu, District Kullu, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Kullu. The Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kullu, District Kullu, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.