District Haridwar v. State of Uttaranchal

Let the applicant, namely, Smt. Lata Rani be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.)

04.07.2006 ASWAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Cancellation Application No. 1505 of 2006 Smt. Vandana ….. Applicant Versus Lata Rani and others ……….. Respondents Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.a. for respondent No.3 With Bail Cancellation Application No. 1504 of 2006 Smt. Vandana …… Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….. Respondents Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Vide order dated 07/06/2006, this court granted bail to accused Sompal Singh and the following order was passed by this court:- “Heard Sri Rajendra Singh-learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It was contended that the report has been lodged on the basis of the audit report thereafter, according to the rule 183 of the Audit Manual, the compliance report has been submitted and it has been alleged that the entire irregularities have been rectified. It was further contended that no inquiry thereafter has been held as to whether there was any misappropriation or not. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case in totality, it is a fit case for bail at this stage. Let the accused-applicant, Sompal Singh be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of J.M. Roorkee.”

2. After granting bail to Sompal Singh, Smt. Lata Rani moved another another bail application No. 569 of 2006 in this cort in which my brother Justice B.C. Kandpal vide order dated 04/07/2006 granted bail to accused Lata rAni and passed the following order on the said bail application:- “The applicant has applied for bail in case crime No.50 I.P.C., Police Station of 2006 under Section 409 of Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Heard Sri Rajendrea Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.a. and perused the record. The applicant is a Gram Pradhan and it is alleged in the First Information Report that there was some irregularity in the expenditure made by her for the work done for public purpose. Co-accused Sompal against whom the allegation is that the money has been invested y the applicant with his connivance, ha been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.06.2006. Having considered the aforesaid circumstances, I think that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Let the applicant, namely, Smt. Lata Rani be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned.”

3. Thereafter, bail cancellation application were moved by Smt. Vandana who is said to be deputy Pradhan Village Habibpur, Navada Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. The said bail cancellation application were moved on the ground that the accused- Sompal filed compliance letter of the audit report dated 04/05/2005 which is annexure-3 to the bail application purported to have been issued the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat), Development Division, Bhagwanpur. It was further pointed out that relying upon the said document bail order was passed by this court, accused Lata Rani also released on bail by the Court on the ground of parity. It was also alleged in the bail cancellation application that respondent Sompal Singh had not complied with the audit report as alleged by him in the bail application vide letter dated 01/05/2005 annexure-3 to the bail petition. It was further contended that the said document is false, forged and manipulated one on the basis of which the bail was obtained by the accused. The applicant further alleged that the bail granted to both of the accused persons by the aforesaid orders be cancelled and proceedings should be initiated against u/s 340 Cr.P.C.

4. The applicant has filed affidavit the bail cancellation application. The State has also filed affidavit of Ghanshyam Dutt Sharma, who is stated to have signed on the letter dated 01/05/2005. He has stated in the counter affidavit that he has not issued such certificate to the deponent and it does not contain his signature. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has also filed counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit in support of their case that the said certificate was issued by Ghanshyam Dutt Sharam. They have also filed report of Inquiry Officer, Balram Sharma, Assistant Director Jalagam, Rookee appointed u/s 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 to hold enquiry under Rule 3 of U.p. Panchayats Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up- Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 (‘1997 Rules’ for short).

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Now, it has to be viewed that the letter dated 05/01/2005 which is alleged to have been filed by the respondents was not a genuine one and the said letter was never issued by the Officer concerned. Now, it to be decided whether this document (Annexure-3 the bail petition) was ever acted upon by the State or whether any inquiry about its genuineness was conducted by the department. It was brought to my notice that the F.I.R. was lodged on 29/03/2006 and the Inquiry Officer under Rule 3 of ‘1997 Rules’ was appointed on 01/05/2006 who submitted his report on 12/07/2006. Para 12 of the said report reads thus:- “;gkW ;g rF; izdk”k esa ykuk vR;f/kd egRriw.kZ gS fd ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh ds v/kksgLrkjh dks tkWp gsrq tks i+™kkoyh miYkC/k djkbZ gS ds i`’B la[;k&34 ds :Ik es lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼iapk;r½ us vius i+™kkad esekS @i0@vkfMV@ 2003&04@ fnukad 05&01&2005 ds }kjk ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh dks fy[kk x;kA bl vk”k; dk irz layXu gS fd xzke iapk;r gchciqj fuoknk fodkl [k.M Hkxokuiqj o’kZ 1999&2000 ds fo”ks’k ys[kk ijh{kk izfrosnu esa tks rzqfV;k izdkf”kr gqbZ FkhA mudk ifjikyu dj fy;k x;k gSA vkSj ifjikyu ls iw.kZr lUrq’V gSaA mijksDr irz ds lkFk dksbZ vuqikyu vk[;k i+™kkoyh esa miyC/k ugha djk;h xbZA”

7. This letter was produced before the Inquiry Officer form the file of the Panchayat Raj Officer. To verify as to whether such letter was on record or not, I summoned the original record of the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The original record of the department reveals that Smt. Lata Rani, Gram Pradhan submitted an application on 25/02/2006 in which she has stated A.D.O., Panchayat has already given his certificate of the compliance of the audit report, a copy of which was annexed in the said letter. The departmental file also reveals that the said letter was received in the Panchayat Raj Office on 25/02/2006. It is also pertinent to mention her that on the basis of the special audit conducted prior to the submission of this certificate, the D.M. had proceeded on the basis of the special audit report and the report submitted by the department fro being irregularities committed during tenure of the accused. The matter was processed by the Government and the order of holding the inquiry was received to the office of the D.M. in the month of April, 2006. Thus, it is evident that when the compliance report was submitted, the matter was already under the consideration of the Government for proceeding under rule 3 of ‘1997 Rules’. When the said letter was received by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, it cold not be shown to me that the District Panchayat Raj Officer ever processed the said letter and brought to the notice of D.M. and Government that such letter has been sent to him. The Panchayat Raj Officer did not take any action as it being forged or not genuine. Even he has not made an inquiry from the officer concerned by whom it was purported to have been signed. Thus, the process of F.I.R. and the inquiry proceeded on the one hand and the department did not proceed to verify the veracity of this letter. The said letter was also produced before the Inquiry officer purported to have been issued by the officer concerned who has signed the said letter. The department was processing this letter, as it was genuine one. If the department was of the view that it was forged, he could have very well asserted before the inquiry officer. Though this letter is on the record but nothing reveals that this letter was forged one at present. The State Govt. Had never held an inquiry and it was never concluded that it is forged document.

8. Whether this document is genuine one of not, it can only be decided by the competent authority. The authority did not make any inquiry about its genuineness.

9. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant for canceling the bail on that ground alone. The application for proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is also rejected.

10. The Bail Cancellation Applications are disposed of accordingly.

12.08.2008 Shiv (J.C.S. Rawat, J.)