Ram Chand Bharti v. State of Himachal Pradesh

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant A.G. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This is an application for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 29/2012 dated 4.4.2012, registered at Police Station, Anni for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 IPC.

It has been stated that the case has been registered against petitioner on false and concocted grounds. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest. The petitioner is innocent. He has nothing to do with the commission of offences alleged in the case. The petitioner is Pardhan of Nirman Committee Harijan Basti, Sample. The Committee was constructing a link road to Gram, Sample for Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes which an amount of ` 2-50 lacs was given from M.P. fund. The work for constructing the link road was started in January, 2012. The real uncle of the petitioner and his son with whom the petitioner has not good relations made a false report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for embezzlement of the amount.

The Sub Divisional Magistrate has directed the police authorities to register a case. The Nirman Committee consists of seven members. The Committee has taken a decision to allot the work.. On the date of filing of bail application a sum of ` 2,25,000/ was received which was spent on the construction of the road. A sum of ` 4,000/- has been paid in advance to the labourers who had worked on the site. In addition, an amount of ` 25,000/- was still lying in the Block Office. There is thus, no embezzlement as alleged.

The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

Mr. Ashok Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Kullu has filed an affidavit. He has stated that fifteen labourers who had worked in Sample link road leading to Harijan Basti in tehsil Anni submitted an application to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anni alleging that petitioner Pardhan and Anu Krishan Secretary, Nirman Committee Harijan Basti, Village Sample have not disbursed their wages approximately ` 70,000/-. They had worked in the construction of said road from 20.1.2012 to 31.1.2012 and from 1.2.2012 to

29.2.2012. The Pardhan and Secretary had withdrawn ` 2, 25,000/- from the office of BDO, Anni without seeking consent of other members of the Committee. They have misappropriated the Govt. money. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anni had sent the copy of order dated 23.3.2012 to SHO, Anni and therefore, the case has been registered.

The Investigating Agency has collected documents, such as, Muster Roll of eighteen labourers, who had been shown to have worked for the construction of above road from

1.2.2012 to 21.2.2012, a copy of recommendation by M.P., Mandi Constituency for releasing `2, 50,000/- for construction of aforesaid road, a copy of cheque amounting to ` 2, 50,000/- in favour of Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, a copy of bill dated 1.1.2012 amounting to ` 96,000/- on account of work of JCB, a copy of receipt of ` 96,000/- issued by one Raftar Singh acknowledging receipt of amount from petitioner, a copy of bill dated 3.2.1012 for ` 65,000/- on account of working of JCB, a copy of bill dated 16.2.2012 for ` 60,000/- on account of working of JCB. The copy of receipt dated 3.2.2012 acknowledged by Karam Chand owner of JCB for ` 1,25,000/-.

In the investigation, statements of labourers, Chet Ram, Shayamu Ram, Satya Devi, Bhag Dass, Meena Devi have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. The labourers have stated that petitioner Pardhan and Anu Krishan Secretary had made forged bills of JCB in connivance with Raftar Thakur and Karam Chand Sharma. They have stated that only one JCB for 42 hours was deployed. The witnesses have stated that construction of road was commenced on 20.1.2012 to 29.2.2012 but the muster rolls show that the work was commenced from 1.2.2012 to 21.2.2012. The petitioner has shown disbursement of ` 2, 21,000/-out of `2, 25,000/- received from B.D.O, Anni. The petitioner has not mentioned any where disbursement of ` 4,000/-to labourers. The B.D.O. office, Anni letter dated 2.5.2012 indicates that petitioner has not submitted any bill in respect of work done against which he has got the amount of ` 2, 25,000/- issued from the office of BDO, Anni. The investigation in the case is in progress. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the record. It has been stated in the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Kullu that petitioner got released from BDO office ` 2, 25,000/-. There is mention of payment of ` 1, 25,000/- to Karam Chand and ` 96,000/- to Raftar Singh for deploying JCB. It has been stated that only one JCB was deployed and not two JCBs as claimed by petitioner. There is dispute regarding the number of labourers worked in the road and the period for which they worked. It has been stated that there is no record of disbursement of ` 4,000/-by petitioner out of ` 2, 25,000/-. There is no account of amount paid to labourers. The amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner and Anu Krishan Secretary without concurrence of other members of the Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the labourers are demanding rate of ` 220/-per day as against Govt. rate of ` 120/- per day per person. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of ` 25,000/- is still lying in the BDO office which has not been withdrawn.

It emerges from the material on record that there is a Harijan Basti Nirman Committee. The petitioner is the President of that Committee whereas one Anu Krishan is the Secretary. The petitioner has stated that Nirman Committee consists of seven members. In the affidavit of Superintendent of Police it has been stated that the petitioner and Anu Krishan had withdrawn the amount from the BDO office and disbursed the amount without seeking consent of the other members of the Committee. They have mis- appropriated the amount. The actual work done by the JCB has also been disputed. According to Investigating Officer, as per the labourers who worked on the road the petitioner and Anu Krishan have prepared forged documents in order to support their defence. There is nothing on record whether any amount has been paid to labourers, though it has come on record that labourers had worked. The period of labourers also been disputed by either side.

The Investigating Officer has taken into possession some documents. The superintendent of Police in his affidavit dated

5.5.2012 has shown apprehension that in case petitioner is released on bail he will tamper with the documentary evidence. The investigation in the case is in progress. Prima facie, it has not been shown by the petitioner what amount has been paid to the labourers, according to petitioner some amount has been paid to JCB operator s but as per the Investigating Agency, JCBs have not worked for the period according to complainants as claimed by petitioner. All these aspects require investigation. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.