Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 81 (HP)

Anita Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Applicant-Anita Kumari, has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), with a prayer to direct the Police/Investigating Officer of Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., to release her on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case FIR No.251 of 2024, dated 16.12.2024, registered, under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’). 2. According to the applicant, she is elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Soyara and she has falsely been implicated, in the present case, at the instance of the complainant. 3. As per the applicant, she belongs to a respectable family and is having deep roots in the society. 4. According to the applicant, she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 5. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, has given certain undertakings on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the Police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 7. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 16.12.2024, one Padma Devi-complainant had moved a complaint, mentioning therein that she is resident of the address, as mentioned, in the complaint. Her Panchayat is Sayora and Pradhan of said Panchayat Anita Devi (applicant). 7.1. According to the complainant, for the last so many years, whatsoever amount has been allocated, for executing the work, the applicant used to fill name of the persons residents of the different Tehsil by forging their attendance and thereafter, she herself put their signatures. 7.2. The applicant has allegedly committed forgery of about 60-70 lac and constructed two storeyed building. In the Muster Rolls bearing Nos.75601, for the period 1.3.2023 to 31.3.2023, 75602, for the period 12.04.2023 to 30.04.2023, 75605, for the period 1.5.2023 to 31.5.2023, 75607, for the period 1.6.2023 to 30.06.2023, 75612, for the period 12.09.2023 to 30.09.2023 and 75616, for the period 1.10.2023 to 31.10.2023, she has got entered the presence of Vijay Kumar, Anurag Thakur, Sunita Thakur andn Sagro Devi, all residents of House No.119/A Ward No.04 Bhojpur, Post Office Bhojpur, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. These entries were forged and after putting the forged signatures, over the muster rolls, the said account has been misused and embezzled. 7.3. In order to substantiate, the allegations, the applicant has further alleged that location of the mobile phone numbers of Vijay Kumar and Anurag is to be obtained for the period when they had allegedly worked, as per the muster rolls, as all the above persons are residents of Sundernagar Market and their attendance was forged in the record. All the entries were made by Pradhan Anita Kumari (applicant). 7.4. As per those muster Rolls, Vijay Kumar and Anurag have been shown to be Mason, whereas, Vijay Kumar and Anurag are having Fortuner and Thar vehicles.Apart from the above, they are also having other cars. 7.5. All these facts have been pleaded to show that both of them are from the well to do families. 8. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the FIR, in question, and the police machinery swung into motion. 9. After perusing the said status report, on 19.12.2024, interim protection was granted to the applicant with a direction to join the investigation and the matter was adjourned for 26.12.2024. 10. On 26.12.2024, the police has filed supplementary status report, mentioning therein that muster rolls, as mentioned in the application, were taken into possession from the record of Gram Panchayat Soyara, on 24.12.2024. Perusal of the same shows that in the muster rolls entries were made by Anita Kumari and the attendance was verified in one line in the end of these muster rolls. 11. As per muster roll No.75601, for the period 1.3.2023 to 31.3.2023, 9 persons had worked, for a sum of Rs.71,680/-, muster Roll No.75602, for the period 12.04.2023 to 30.04.2023, 6 persons had worked for a sum of Rs.37,814/-, muster roll No.75605, for the period 1.5.2023 to 31.5.2023, 8 persons had worked, for a sum of Rs.56,511/-, muster roll No.75607, for the period 1.6.2023 to 30.06.2023, 5 persons had worked, for a sum of Rs.45,370/-, muster roll No.75612, for the period 12.09.2023 to 30.09.2023, 10 person had worked, for a sum of Rs.63,330/- and muster roll No.75616, for the period 1.10.2023 to 31.10.2023, 7 persons had worked, for a sum of Rs.65,670/-. 12. 12. It has also been mentioned in the status report that the applicant has joined the investigation and another case under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is found to have been registered against her, vide FIR No.54/23, dated 13.2.2023, which is pending adjudication, in the competent Court of law. 13. It has been apprehended that in case the interim order is made absolute, the applicant may coerce the witnesses and may adversely affect the investigation of the case. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for31.12.2024. 14. On that day, the police had also filed subsequent status report, disclosing therein that the questionnaire was given to the applicant, in which, she had given the answers voluntarily. 15. It is the further case of the police that the applicant has not disclosed about the names and addresses of the persons, whose names was allegedly mentioned in the muster rolls. 16. On the basis of the CDRs, the locations of mobile phones of Vijay Kumar and Anurag, at the relevant time, was found to be in Delhi, Haryana, Punjab and District Kangra and Bilaspur. 17. In the supplementary status report filed today, same stand has been taken. 18. Heard. 19. In the status report, it has been mentioned that the applicant has joined the investigation and the entire record has been taken into possession by the Police. It is not the case of the police that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation. 20. So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police, in the status report, are concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the interim order is made absolute. 21. The applicant is permanent resident of District Mandi, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case the interim order is made absolute, she may not be available for trial. 22. So far as the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General qua the fact that another case, under Section 420 and 120-B, is found to have been registered against the applicant, is concerned, admittedly, in the said case, no conviction has been recorded by the competent Court of law. The relief of bail cannot be declined to the applicant, for which, the applicant is, otherwise, entitled to, as the presumption of innocence is still available to him. 23. The relief of bail cannot be declined to the applicant, for which, the applicant is, otherwise, entitled to, as the presumption of innocence is still available to him. 23. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interim protection, granted to the applicant, is required to be made absolute, as, no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the present application, which would result into the judicial custody of the applicant. 24. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 19.12.2024, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall 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. 25. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, 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 application. 26. The applicant is directed to move regular bail application, when charge sheet will be filed in the Competent Court of Law. 27. 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 violated by the applicant.