IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Pankaj Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No.452 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial, claiming false implication and completed investigation - Previous bail application dismissed - Co-accused released on bail - No useful purpose in judicial custody as investigation complete - Conditions imposed for bail. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Judicial custody - Pre-trial punishment prohibited - Custodial interrogation not required - Parity with co-accused justifies bail. (Paras 14-17)
(C) Conditions of bail - Applicant must attend trial, not tamper with evidence, and seek permission before leaving India. (Paras 19-21)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, implicated in a bribery case, claims innocence and states that the investigation is complete, with no further recovery needed from him. Previous bail application was denied.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for continued judicial custody and granted bail based on the completion of the investigation and the principle of parity with a co-accused.
Issues: The main issues included the merits of the bail application, false implication claims, and the necessity of judicial custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that pre-trial punishment is not permissible and that the applicant's release on bail is justified given the circumstances.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Pankaj Kumar, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated 07.02.2025, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PC Act’), with Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kullu, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in this case, and has nothing to do with the alleged offence.
3. The applicant has termed the entire case of the prosecution, as concocted one and without any substance, as, nothing has been recovered from him.
4. As per the applicant, the investigation in the present case is almost complete and nothing is to be recovered from him, as such, no useful purposed would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody.
5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application before Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., however, his application has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge, vide order dated 22.2.2025.
6. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Hemant Vaid, Advocate, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
7. Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled for the relief of bail on the ground of parity also, as his co- accused, Bhavita Tandon, has already been released by this Court, vide order dated 06.03.2025, passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No.349 of 2025.
8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 7.2.2025, complainant Prittam Chand, has produced a complaint before the Dy.SP, Incharge Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, against Bhavita Tandon, upon which, the FIR, in question, has been registered.
9.1. In the said complaint, it has been mentioned by the complainant that he is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and is running a hotel in the name and style of ‘Snow Peck Retreat’ comprising 32 rooms.
9.2. On 28.11.2024, Inspector Pankaj (applicant), Department of Health Safety and Regulation, Kullu, came there for checking and he had collected the samples of eatables, oil and papad. On 16.1.2025, Bhavita Tandon, Assistant Commissioner, Food Safety Kullu, issued two notices. One notice was with regard to the misbranded papad and another was with regard to unsafe cooking oil. The notices were required to be replied within 30 days
9.3. Thereafter, in order to get the information with regard to the notices, the complainant has deputed his nephew to the office of Bhavita Tandon, on 4.2.2025, when Bhavita Tandon had demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as bribe to settle the matter. This fact has been apprised to the complainant by his nephew.
9.4. Since, the complainant was not interested to pay the said bribe, as such, he had gone to the Police Station, SV & ACB, Kullu, where voice recorder and camera eyewear were given to record the demand of bribe.
9.5. Thereafter, the complainant has submitted the recording, in which, she has reduced the demand of bribe to Rs.1,10,000/-, to settle the matter, involved in the notices, upon which, the police has registered the case.
9.6. Thereafter, pre-trap proceedings were conducted on 9.2.2025, in the Circuit House, Kullu. The following persons were associated in the trap:
i) Prittam Chand, complainant
ii Inspector Ashok Kumar, PS SV&ACB, Kullu
iii) Inspector Munish Kumar, PS SV&ACB, Mandi
iv) SI Narayan Lal, PS SV&ACB, Kullu
v SI Sher Singh, PS SV&ACB, Mandi
vi) Ct. Rajesh Kumar, PS SV&ACB, Kullu
vii) HHG Kurm Dutt, PS SV&ACB, Kullu
viii) HHLC Rekha, PS SV&ACB, Mandi
ix) HHLC Raksha, SP Office, CR, Mandi
9.7. Apart f
The court established that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and justified the bail grant based on completed investigation and parity with a co-accused.
Pre-trial custody is prohibited as punishment; bail may be granted if investigation is complete and no purpose is served by continued detention.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of pre-trial punishment; conditions for bail must ensure attendance and integrity of the trial process.
The absence of direct evidence against the applicant and the completion of the investigation justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of parity with co-accused.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail should not be denied if custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Bail should not be denied as punishment before trial; completion of investigation and absence of commercial quantity justify granting bail.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, allowing bail based on the completion of investigation and parity with co-accused.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail may be granted if the contraband does not meet the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
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.