Back
2003 Supreme(HP) 129
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
K.C.SOOD
SURINDER MOHAN KATWAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (M) No. 572 of 2003 and Cr. M.P. (M) No. 573 of 2003
Decided On : 06/11/2003
M/s. T.R. Chandel and Naresh Thakur, Advocates, for the Petitioner; Mr. M.S. Chandel Advocate General with Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Additional Advocate General, for the Respondent.
The discretion to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised with care and circumspection, balancing the individual's liberty with the interest of fair and fearless investigation.
Headnote:
Pre-arrest Bail - Corruption - Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired I.A.S. Officer, was accused of tampering with selection documents and misusing his position to favor certain candidates. He sought pre-arrest bail, claiming false charges due to political vendetta and health issues.
Finding of the Court:
The Court considered the seriousness of the charges, the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation. It denied pre-arrest bail but ordered the petitioner to surrender for interrogation and then be released on bail with conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted pre-arrest bail considering the gravity of the charges and the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for careful exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail, considering the nature and gravity of the circumstances, and balancing the petitioner's liberty with the interest of the investigation.
Final Decision: The Court denied pre-arrest bail but ordered the petitioner to surrender for interrogation and then be released on bail with specific conditions.
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—These two petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arise out of similar facts and circumstances and are being disposed of by this order.
2. To appreciate the controversy and the respective contentions of the parties, few facts may be noticed: Petitioners in both the petitions, Shri Surinder Mohan Katwal, is a retired Himachal Cadre I.A.S. Officer. After his superannuation, he was appointed Member of the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board, hereinafter referred to as "the Board", in October, 1998. In August 1999, he was given additional charge of Chairman of the Board. The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Board in January, 2002.
3. The Enforcement Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh received some secret information to the effect that some documents and record in the Board was being destroyed on which the Government constituted a high level Inquiry Team. The Special Inquiry Team searched the official residence of the petitioner at Hamirpur, house at Una and ancestral house from March 11 to March 13, 2003. The office of the petitioner4 was sealed and subsequently searched.
4. During the search of the office of the petitioner, some documents were seized by the Police pertaining to the selection of candidates for various posts. Allegations against the petitioner are that the answer-sheets and other related documents of selection were tampered with. Certain persons were given high marks in the interview to enable them to get into the service. While awarding marks for interview, the other members, according to the Inquiry Report, were not consulted. In one case, according to the Inquiry Report, no mark was awarded to a candidate in the interview and even if one mark was awarded to that candidate, the candidate would have been selected. The Inquiry Report concluded that the petitioner mis-used his official position in connivance with some candidates to give them wrongful gain at the cost of the deserving candidates and recommended that a case for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 217, 218, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act may be registered.
5. A First Information Report in terms of FIR No. 3 of 2003 was accordingly registered with Police Station (Enforcement) North Zone, Dharamshala. Another FIR in terms of FIR No. 4 of 2003 was also registered with the same Police Station for similar offences against the petitioner. In that case, the Board conducted interviews for selection to T.G.T. (Medical, Non-medical and Arts) Courses. During inquiry, it was found that marks awarded to the candidates were tampered with and in one case; the interview marks were changed from 10 to 18 to enable that candidate to get selected. This tampering, it is alleged, was done by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner by these two petitions pray for pre-arrest bail on the grounds that his office was sealed by the Police on March 9, 2003 itself. The petitioner came to know about it through the newspapers. He immediately came to Hamirpur on March 11, 2003. On that date, his residence at Hamirpur was searched. His house at Una, in the name of his wife, and his ancestral house were also searched but nothing incriminating was found. According to the petitioner, he assisted the Inquiry team and the Investigation in accordance with the directions of the concerned Police Officers.
7. The case of the petitioner is that these cases have falsely been registered against him with the change of the Government at the instance of the present Ruling Party as he was appointee of the previous Government and during the campaign for recent elections for Assembly "lot of hue and cry was raised by the members of now ruling party, alleging bungling in the appointment by the Officers of the Board." It is his case that he had cooperated with the Investigating Agency and the Inquiry Team. The
