1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 844 of 2011. Date of decision: 24.10.2011. Rattan Lal. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh ,Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.315/2011 dated 30.09.2011, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, under Sections 420, 406, 467,468, 471 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Rampur Bharapur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, for the term 2005-2010. One Om Prakash was defeated in the election of Pradhan by the petitioner, therefore, said Om Prakash had filed various complaints against the petitioner alleging some irregularities. He filed CWP No. 7968 of 2011 also. 3. On the basis of the complaints filed by Om Prakash, the case under Sections 420, 406 IPC has been registered against the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 petitioner on 30.09.2011. On account of the registration of the case, the petitioner apprehends his arrest. 4. The allegations made against the petitioner are false and baseless. The petitioner without going into the merits of the complaints had deposited the amount alleged to have been misappropriated and misutilized by him. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner remained Pradhan of the Panchayat and the arrest of the petitioner will adversely affect his respect in the society. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 5. The bail application has been opposed by filing status report. It has been stated that statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Om Prakash was recorded and thereafter the case has been registered. The complainant has alleged that he had been Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Bharapur. He suspected misutilization of 'MNREGA' and 'NAREGA' funds. He obtained information under Right to Information Act , which reveals that petitioner has misappropriated the government funds. The petitioner has shown presence of one person on muster rolls on two places as under :- Sr. No. Name of the Persons. i) Jai Prakash, son of Shri Surender, 01.01.2009 to 31.01.2009, 13.01.2009 to 31.01.2009. ii) Mohammad Rafeeq, son of Shri Raseed, 01.01.2009 to 31.01.2009, 07.01.2009 to 31.01.2009. iii) Jai Prakash son of Shri Roda Ram, 01.01.2009 to 31.01.2009, 07.01.2009 to 31.01.2009. iv) Rafeeq , son of Shri Fakkar Ali, 01.02.2009 to 05.02.2009, 01.02.2009 to 28.02.2009. 3 v) Raghubir, son of Shri Munshi Ram, 01.02.2009 to 05.02.2009, 01.02.2009 to 28.02.2009. vi) Suresh Kumar, son of Shri Yad Ram, 01.02.2009 to 05.02.2009, 01.02.2009 to 28.02.2009, 17.09.2009 to30.09.2009 and 22.07.2009 to 31.07.2009. vii) Balbir son of Shri Mukandi, 22.07.2009 to 31.07.2009 and his presence has been shown in muster roll No. 0022465. viii) Naresh Kumar, son of Shri Roshan Lal, 01.09.2009 to 15.09.2009, 05.09.2009 to 16.09.2009. ix) Shukar Ali, son of Shri Dina, 01.09.2009 to 15.09.2009, 05.09.2009 to 16.09.2009. x) Narata Ram, son of Shri Narayan Dass, 01.10.2009 to 15.10.2009, 01.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. xi) Mahinder , son of Shri Jagdsih, 01.10.2009 to 15.10.2009, 01.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. xii) Ali Sher, son of Shri Khalil, 01.10.2009 to 15.10.2009, 01.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. xiii) Prayag Raj, son of Shri Phool Singh,who never worked as 'majdoor' on muster roll, Rattan Lal has forged his signatures. xiv) The street from the house of Ashik Ali to the house of Mangat Ram was constructed by PWD and not by the Panchayat. xv) No culvert was constructed at Doiowala which has been shown as constructed. xvi) No drinking water tank has been constructed at village Majri which has been shown as constructed. xvii) The retaining wall constructed near the field of Bahadur Singh with the stones taken from Batta river and not after carrying boulders on tractor, the receipt of `1,14,660/- showing carriage of boulders is forged. xviii) The retaining wall was constructed near the field of Noor Mohammad Fakkar Ali by using local stones and not from the boulders taken from Yamuna River. xix) Raj Kumar, son of Shri Narata Ram is a driver for the last many years, has been shown on work on muster roll from 20.08.2009 to 22.08.2009. xx) Shadi Ram, son of Shri Narata Ram, Panchayat Chowkidar, had been shown on muster roll from 21.01.2009 to 31.01.2009, 01.02.2009 to 28.02.2009. xxi) Raj Karan, son of Shri Amar Singh, who is working on contract in the University at Dhaula Kuan, has been shown on work on muster roll from 01.08.2009 to 31.08.2009. 4 xxii) Sukh Ram, son of Shri Amar Singh,who is working in a Company, has been shown on work on muster roll from 05.01.2009 to 16.02.2009. xxiii) The names of 13 labourers have been shown in the muster roll of January, 2009, but it bears the signatures of 12 labourers only. xxiv) Jai Prakash, son of Shri Bagga Ram in muster roll of December, 2008 had signed in English but in the muster roll of February, 2009, he had signed in Hindi. xxv) Akram, son of Shri Nazar, in the muster roll of November has been shown on work, whereas , he is a school student. xxvi) Yanu Ram, son of Shri Gopal, driver of Rattan Lal Pradhan, had been shown on work, but in January, 2010 in place of Yanu Ram, Prayag Ram had signed. xxvii) The quotations were written by Rattan Lal, Pradhan, which are forged. There is no quotation for the year 2008-09. xxviii) There are no details of shuttering bills, directly amounts have been shown and the receipts are forged. xxix) Most of the receipts given by Sukh Dev, son of Shri Bugla Ram, owner of tractor No. HP-17B-9316 are forged. Some of the receipts in the name of nephew of Rattan Lal and some in the name of Sukh Dev, which are forged. xxx) Rattan Lal petitioner is the owner of tractor Nos. HP-17-4056, HP-17B-9616 and HP-17B-0795, but receipts are in the name of his nephew. xxxi) Naresh Kumar son of Shri Roshan , Sukh Ram, son of Shri Mada Ram, Naresh Kumar son of Shri Mada Ram, Ashok Kumar son of Shri Gita Ram, Rangeel Singh son of Shri Chuhad Singh and Bilu son of Shri Puttru Ram, are working in Iron Valley, Rattan Lal has marked their presence on the muster rolls and forged their signatures. xxxii) Malkiyat Singh, son of Shri Budh Ram, is working in Air Tel Office at Paonta Sahib, his presence has been shown in the muster roll. xxxiii) Ashok Kumar, son of Shri Ram Sawrup , never worked in the Panchayat as labourer, but on muster roll his presence has been marked and signatures have been forged. 6. It has been stated in the status report that it has come in the 5 investigation that in 'NAREGA' muster roll No. 22250 dated 01.02.2009 to 05.02.2009, the names of Rafeeq son of Shri Fakkar Ali, Raghubir son of Shri Munshi Ram, Suresh Kumar son of Shri Yad Ram and in 'NAREGA' muster roll No. 0025955 dated 01.09.2009 to 15.09.2009, names of Shakur Mohammad Ali son of Shri Deen Mohammad, Naresh Kumar son of Shri Roshan Lal, have been marked twice by Rattan Lal. In general muster roll No. 43 dated 01.10.2009 to 12.10.2009 the presence of Ali Sher son of Shri Khalid Ahmad, Mahinder Singh son of Shri Deep Chand, Narata son of Shri Narayan Dass, in general muster roll No. 16 dated 01.01.2009, the presence of Jai Prakash son of Shri Surender Singh, Mohammad Rafeeq son of Shri Raseed Mohammad and Jai Prakash son of Shri Roda and in muster roll No. 38 dated 05.09.2009 presence of Shakur Ali son of Shri Dinna, Naresh Kumar son of Shri Roshan Lal, has been marked twice by Rattan Lal. 7. Rattan Lal has deposited a sum of ` 45,346/-. Irregularities have been found in misutilization of government funds. It has been found that the receipts of tractors No. HP-17B-9559, HP-17-4056, HP-17B-0795 are mostly in the name of Raj Kumar son of Shri Gulzari Singh, Ramesh Chand son of Shri Ranjeet Singh. The aforesaid tractors are owned by the family members of Rattan Lal and beneficiaries are also members of family of Rattan Lal. It has been stated that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and it requires elaborate investigation. The wife of the petitioner is the present Pradhan of Panchayat. It has been stated that in order to find out the truth custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the 6 allegations against the petitioner are documents based. The petitioner is not now Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. It has been submitted that what can be interrogated by way of custodial interrogation, that can be interrogated by the Investigating Agency even when the petitioner is released on bail. 9. The question is whether petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of allegations against him, is entitled to bail at this stage under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There is substance in the submission of the learned Assistant Advocate General that in order to find out the truth how petitioner has manipulated the working of different persons on muster rolls and how the funds were misappropriated, the close interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Similarly, in order to find out how some works were not executed, some works were executed but not in the manner as shown in the record, it is necessary to thoroughly interrogate the petitioner. He has submitted that wife of the petitioner is presently the Pradhan of the Panchayat. The petitioner has already deposited a sum of `45,346/-, though the submission has been made on behalf of petitioner that the deposit of the amount of ` 45,346/- by the petitioner may not be construed as admission of any irregularity by the petitioner, but fact remains that petitioner has deposited `45,346/-. The investigation is at initial stage. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 7 10. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. October 24, 2011. (Krt)