Sodhi Ram vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court allowed the bail applications, making the interim orders absolute. The Court reasoned that the applicants were permanent residents of the district and their custodial interrogation was not sought, thus bail should not be used as punishment. It was noted that the alleged roles of the applicants would be proven during a full-fledged trial. The Court observed that the allegations were based on documentary evidence already in police possession, and there was no indication that further crucial documents were with the applicants. Crucially, the Court granted bail on the ground of parity, citing the release of co-accused by this Court in similar matters. The applicants were directed to furnish personal bonds and surety, and were subjected to standard bail conditions, including joining the investigation, not leaving India without permission, not tampering with evidence, and attending the trial court regularly. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail applications and not on the merits of the case.

Facts

The applicants, Sodhi Ram and Het Ram, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan. The FIR was based on a complaint by Ex-Pradhan Bagga Ram alleging irregularities and embezzlement in development works of Gram Panchayat Malehani. The applicants claimed the complaint was a counter-blast to their co-accused's complaint against Bagga Ram and that no embezzlement occurred. They also argued for parity with co-accused already released on bail. The police investigation revealed discrepancies in quotations, forged bills, and the non-existence of a mentioned GSTIN. The owners of vehicles allegedly used for transportation denied involvement. A PWD inspection report indicated some works were executed as per estimates, though some portions were damaged or not as described. The police contended that Sodhi Ram's firm was unduly benefited and Het Ram, as Ex-Pradhan, was penalized by the Lokpal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), considering the allegations of embezzlement and forgery related to development works in Gram Panchayat Malehani? 2. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail on the ground of parity, given that their co-accused have already been released on bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that the complaint was motivated by ulterior motives and was a counter-blast to a complaint made by their co-accused. They asserted that the alleged embezzlement never occurred, as all works were executed and verified. They also highlighted their permanent residency and respectable family background, indicating no flight risk. Furthermore, they contended that their co-accused had already been granted bail by this Court, entitling them to similar relief on the principle of parity. Respondent's Arguments: The State, through the police, presented a status report detailing the investigation. This report highlighted forged quotations, the use of the same GST number by different vendors, and the non-existence of the mentioned GSTIN. It also noted that vehicle owners denied their vehicles were used for transporting construction material. The police further alleged that the applicant Sodhi Ram's firm received undue benefits and that the applicant Het Ram, as Ex-Pradhan, had been penalized by the Lokpal for irregularities.