Surender Pal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, petitioner. For the respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Inspector-Mahesh Kumar, State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P. present along with record. Status report taken on record. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

#2. Petitioner Surender Pal has filed the instant petition seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 1 of 2011 dated 10.1.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station SV & ACB, Kullu, H.P.

#3. As per the police, petitioner allegedly issued receipt No. 0093200 to the owner of vehicle No. HP-01-A-1122 for payment of fine of ‘ 2000/- imposed for violation of statutory provisions. However when the record maintained by the petitioner was checked by the Vigilance Department, it was so found that on the counter foil part the amount written was ‘ 200/- instead of ‘ 2000/-. Also name of the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle number were different. Accordingly F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and co-accused Smt. Krishna Negi on 10.1.2011. Apparently at the time of commission of the alleged offence, said Smt. Krishna Negi was working as the Regional Transport Officer, Flying Squad, Kullu and petitioner was working under her direct control.

#4. Smt. Krishna Negi has been enlarged on bail.

#5. Prior to the filing of the present petition, petitioner approached Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. seeking identical prayer, which request stands rejected in terms of order dated 3

16.8.2012, primarily on the ground that petitioner is charged for having committed a heinous crime.

#6. Having gone through the record I am of the considered view that keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 petition needs to be allowed.

#7. In the instant case, allegedly the receipt in question was actually issued by the petitioner but perhaps under the supervision of Smt. Krishna Negi. Be that as it may be, such facts are required to be established by the prosecution during trial. However, the fact of the matter is that since January, 2011, police has not sought custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In fact during investigation, petitioner has always associated himself and made himself available to the police at all times. He is a government employee and is posted at Mandi which is at a short distance from Kullu where F.I.R. stands registered. Petitioner has also given specimen of his hand- writing and signatures before the Executive Magistrate.

#8. The instant petition is opposed by the State primarily on the ground that specimen signatures and hand-writing of the petitioner is also required under the provisions of Section 311A Cr.P.C. It is urged that necessary and effective orders under 4 the said provisions can be passed only if a person is arrested in connection with the investigation and proceedings.

#9. I am of the considered view that the submission is premature and unsustainable in law as the respondent/State has yet not moved any application before the concerned Magistrate under the relevant provisions. Such application, as and when moved, has to be considered by the concerned Magistrate on its own merits. It may or may not pass any orders in favour of the State. That issue has to be adjudicated by the concerned Court on its own merit. Also applicability of provisions of Section 311A Cr.P.C. would come into effect only if the State were to arrest the petitioner. In its wisdom police may not arrest at all, as has not been so done until now, and that decision is to be taken by the police based on its own merits and other attending circumstances. If however petitioner is arrested and enlarged on bail conditions so stipulated in the proviso to Section 311A Cr.P.C. would still be met.

#10. Coming to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner has fully co-operated during investigation. F.I.R. was registered way back in January, 2011 and the principal accused stands enlarged on bail. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail by the 5 Arresting Officer, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of ‘ 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount. Needless to add, all conditions so stipulated and applicable under the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C. shall be fully complied with by the petitioner. He shall not leave the country without leave of Court; fully co-operate with the investigation and make himself available as and when so required; not tamper with the evidence or otherwise influence the witnesses who are likely to depose in favour of the prosecution. Record returned. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti. August 22 , 2012 (PK) (Sanjay Karol), Judge.