IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Nitin - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 744 of 2025
Decided On : 14-05-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, and 468 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bail application - Applicant apprehending arrest in FIR for forgery related to job application - Court grants interim protection, emphasizing presumption of innocence and the need for trial - Conditions imposed for bail include joining investigation and not leaving India. (Paras 1, 14, 19)
(B) Pre-trial punishment - The court reiterates that punishment can only be inflicted after a full-fledged trial, and the role of the applicant will be determined during the trial. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, falsely accused in a case of forgery related to a job application, claims innocence and has no prior criminal record. He is a permanent resident of Haryana and has provided undertakings for bail conditions. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 7)
Findings of Court:
The court finds no case for custodial interrogation and confirms the interim order allowing bail, subject to conditions ensuring the applicant's presence during trial. (Paras 14, 19)
Issues: The main issues include the applicant's innocence, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the conditions for granting bail. (Paras 10, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and emphasizes the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, allowing bail with conditions to ensure the applicant's presence at trial. (Paras 15, 17)
Result: Interim order made absolute, subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.156 of 2024 dated 09.09.2024, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Boileuganj, District Shimla, H.P. applicant-Nitin has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’).
2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Boileuganj, to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR.
3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been named as accused, in this case.
4. As per the applicant, he has no criminal antecedents and is ready to abide by any condition, imposed by this Court, in case, any direction is issued to the IO/police of Police Station Boileuganj, under Section 482 of BNSS.
5. The applicant is stated to be from a respectable family, having deep roots in the society.
6. The applicant has further asserted that he is the permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the application.
7. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case.
8. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.
9. When, put to notice, police has filed the status report on 03.04.2025, disclosing therein, that on 09.09.2024, Mr. Vijay, Inspector, Post Office, Sub-Division Shimla (East), has submitted a complaint, disclosing therein, that the Department of Dak Bhawan, New Delhi has issued Notification No.17-21/2023-GDS dated 27.01.2023, for filling up the posts of Gramin Dak Sewak and in the said recruitment process, on the basis of the marks, obtained in the matriculation examination, Nitin (applicant) was selected as Gramin Dak Sewak:
9.1. After the selection of the applicant as Gramin Dak Sewak, his documents were sent for verification and it was reported, by the Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai, that the same have not been issued by it, upon which, the appointment of Nitin (applicant) was cancelled and a prayer has been made to register the case against the applicant.
9.2. Subsequently, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion.
9.3. During the investigation, requisite documents were taken into possession, including the printout of the online application form, filled by Nitin (applicant), his original Class X certificate, order of engagement, as well as, the termination order.
9.4. It has been mentioned in the status report that the applicant has submitted the forged certificate of Class X and got the job and caused financial loss to the State.
9.5. After perusing the status report, filed on 03.04.2025, interim protection was granted to the applicant, by directing him to join the investigation and the matter was adjourned for 09.04.2025.
9.6. On 09.04.2025, police has filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that the applicant has joined the investigation.
9.7. It is the further stand of the police that during the investigation, it has come on record that one Kailash, S/o Asanand, R/o Mohalla Krishna Nagar, No.73, Rewari, Haryana, apprised the applicant, with regard to the advertisement of the posts in the Post Office, in which, jobs are given on the basis of 10th merit, without any test. The applicant allegedly paid Rs.20,000/- to the said person, who has provided him Class X certificate, which, he had uploaded at the time of filling up the application form. The applicant allegedly shown his ignorance, as to from where, said Kailash has obtained Class X certificate.
9.8. Lastly, it has been apprehended that the applicant is the reside
The court confirmed interim bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and prohibiting pre-trial punishment, while imposing conditions to ensure the applicant's presence at trial.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law; bail cannot be denied without evidence necessitating custodial interrogation.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail granted when no evidence necessitates custodial interrogation.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; applicants must cooperate with the investigation and comply with specified conditions.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment; the necessity of custodial interrogation must be established for denial.
The court ruled that bail can be granted when specific allegations are lacking and the applicant cooperates with the investigation, emphasizing that pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
The presumption of innocence prohibits pre-trial punishment, and bail may be granted with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
The court ruled that the police did not establish a need for custodial interrogation, allowing the applicant's bail application under specific conditions.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as punishment, and presumption of innocence must be upheld.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied without just cause, especially when custodial interrogation is not required.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.