IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Keshav Ram - Applicant
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 517 of 2025
Decided On : 22-03-2025
(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 completion of investigation with no recovery needed - Previous bail applications dismissed - Co-accused released on bail - Court finds no purpose in continued custody and grants bail with conditions. (Paras 1, 4, 17, 18)
(B) Judicial Custody - Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law; custody should not be punitive and must serve a purpose in investigation. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, Keshav Ram, seeks bail in a corruption case alleging false implication, with no evidence recovered against him and investigation nearly complete. Co-accused have been granted bail. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court:
The court finds no necessity for the applicant's continued judicial custody, allowing bail on the grounds of parity and completion of investigation. (Paras 14, 18)
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail given the completion of investigation and the release of co-accused. (Paras 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that pre-trial custody should not be punitive and must serve a specific purpose, which is not present in this case. (Paras 15, 17)
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Keshav Ram, 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. Maan Singh, 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 and Pankaj Kumar have already been released by this Court, vide orders dated 06.03.2025 and 19.03.2025.
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, 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 from this, two in
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 established that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and justified the bail grant based on completed investigation and parity with a co-accused.
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.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail should not be denied if custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of pre-trial punishment; conditions for bail must ensure attendance and integrity of the trial process.
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 may be granted if the contraband does not meet the definition of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that the applicant is entitled to bail as the contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
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.