20.12.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 December, 2024

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On : 20.12.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 December, 2024

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

2024:HHC:15552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.2528 of 2024

Decided on : 20.12.2024
Praveen Kumar Sharma …Applicant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar,
Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, assisted by Inspector
Rajesh Kumar, SV & ACB (SIU),
Shimla.

Virender Singh, Judge.

Applicant-Praveen Kumar Sharma,

apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.0178 dated

11.07.2024 registered under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC‘), registered

with Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, H.P., has filed the

present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as

‘BNSS’).

1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2

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 Sadar, Hamirpur, 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 implicated in this case, at the

instance of the complainant. He has termed the

allegations, as alleged, is the FIR, as false and baseless, to

contend that the present case has been registered against

him, on account of political rivalry.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the FIR in

question has been registered qua the work, which has been

completed 6 years ago.

5. The applicant has also asserted that he is

having deep roots in the society and in case, no protection

is given to him, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

6. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been

made to direct the I.O/Police of Police Station Sadar,

Hamirpur, H.P. to release the applicant on bail, in the

event of his arrest in above-noted FIR.
3

7. When put to notice, the police has filed the

status report disclosing therein, that the complainant

Deepak Kapil, the then Executive Engineer, National

Highway Division, Hamirpur, has submitted a complaint to

the police, mentioning therein the following facts:-

“Subject:- Regarding issuance of Fictitious work
done certificate under fraudulent practices by
contractor M/s Jandu Construction India Pvt. Lid
Gurgaon in favour of Sh. Praveen Kumar
Sharma(Sub-contractor) the beneficiary. Sir, it is
intimated that work of widening to two-lane with
paved shoulders, strengthening and geometric
improvement of NH-88(New NH-103) from Km.
95/0 (Near Kandrour Bridge) to Km. 140/0 (Near
Hamirpur) (New RD85/900 to 129/235) in the
State of Himachal Pradesh (Km. 96/500 to
113/100 New Chainage) Section-II was
awarded to contractor M/S Jandu Construction
Company. Model Town. Mandi Adampur. Hissar
(Haryana) by the Executive Engineer NH
Division, Hamirpur on 30.09.2016 for contract
price of Rs. 47,53,05,714/- only. The Contractor
during execution of the work submitted the
proposal to the Executive Engineer, NH Division
Hamirpur for sub-contracting above work up to
10% for non-mechanized work i.e. earth work,
Sub-base work and minor CD to Sh. Parveen
Kumar Sharma. Village Mulana P.O. Bohni,
Tehsil & District Hamirpur (HP) for approval as
per clause 7.1 of GCC read with SCC of contract
and same was approved by the Chief Engineer
(NH). HPPWD. Shimla vide letter no. PW- CE-NH-

CTR-Km.96/500 to 113/100/S-11/2017-994-95
dated 12.10.2017. The Contractor M/S Jhandu
construction company vide letter dated
27.08.2018 and dated Nil (Annexure- I and
Annexure-1A respectively) has informed the
Executive Engineer. NH Division Hamirpur that
approved sub-contractor Sh. Parveen Kumar
Sharma had completed the work of non-

mechanized items amounting to Rs.

1,13,75,428/- and on account of good progress
4
and quality by work done by him. the necessary
work done certificate be issued to sub-
contractor. the matter for verifying the
authenticity of the work done certificate as will
as payment made/ TDS deducted regarding the
work done by Sh. Parveen Kumar Sharma as
sub-contractor was taken up with the contractor
M/S Jandu Construction Company vide letter no.
PW/NH/HMR/AB / Arb.Case / 2024:- 864-67
dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure- II) in support of to
verify the authenticity of the actual work done
by Sh. Parveen Kumar Sharma as sub-

contractor. However, no response in this regard
has been received from the contractor till date
and he has failed to provide the desired
necessary documents to provide the authenticity
of the work done. There appears to be no entry
in the Measurement Book to establish that work
has been actually done by Sh. Parveen Kumar
Sharma as sub-contractor to the nature and
value certified by the contractor in favour of Sh.
Parveen Kumar Sharma. In the absence of
documentary evidence for payment made/TDS
deducted for the work done by Sh. Parveen
Kumar Sharma as Sub-contractor. the certificate
dated 15.09.2018, (Annexure-III) issued in
favour of Sh. Parveen Kumar Sharma (Sub-
contractor) on the recommendation of M/s Jandu
Construction Company (Contractor) letter dated
conspiracy 27.08.2018 appears to be fictitious
which result of criminal conspiracy.”

8. On the basis of above facts, police registered the

FIR in question and thereafter, the criminal machinery

swung into motion.

9. Initial investigation was entrusted to ASI

Rakesh Kumar, who has obtained the documents with

regard to award, as well as, work done certificate from the

office of Executive Engineer, National Highway Division,
5
Hamirpur regarding M/s Jandu Construction India Private

Ltd. Gurugram.

10. Further investigation was entrusted to Inspector

Lalit Mahant, Incharge, Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur

who has associated the Project Manager of M/s Jandu

Construction India Private Ltd. The Project Manager,

Jahangir Hassan disclosed that he has not kept the record

of payment made to Sub-contractor, Praveen Kumar.

11. It is the case of the police that during the

investigation, it was also found that the applicant-Praveen

Kumar, at the instance of M/s Jandu Construction India

Private Ltd. and Assistant Engineer, Dharam Chand

Sharma, has obtained the work done certificate, for a sum

of Rs.1,13,75,428/- and used the work done certificate for

his own benefit and got himself registered as Class A

Contractor.

12. Further investigation of the case was entrusted

to Rajesh Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police,

Hamirpur, who has taken into possession the original work

done certificate and relevant papers.

13. Applicant Praveen Sharma was also associated

in the investigation. He was directed to produce the
6
complete record of 10% awarded work of non mechanized

work, as well as, record pertaining to the payment made by

M/s Jandu Construction India Private Ltd., but, as per the

status report, which was filed on 18.11.2024, applicant-

Praveen Kumar could not produce the same before the I.O.

14. As per the status report, despite the repeated

directions, the applicant has not produced the documents

regarding the payment. Similarly, when the bank

statements of the applicant were perused, according to the

status report, no payment was found to be made in favour

of M/s Jandu Construction India Private Ltd., regarding

the work done certificate.

15. It is also the case of the police that applicant

has obtained a forged ‘work done certificate’ and used the

same as a genuine certificate, for obtaining the Class A

Contractor Certificate.

16. As per the police, the connivance of M/s Jandu

Constructions Company India Private Ltd. is also found to

be, in this case.

17. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

been made to dismiss the application.
7

18. On the basis of the above stand, on 18.11.2024,

interim protection was granted to the applicant with a

direction to join the investigation.

19. In the subsequent status report, it has been

submitted that the applicant has joined the investigation

on 19.11.2024 and thereafter, he appeared before the I.O

as and when directed by the I.O to do so, but, he is not

producing the documents regarding the engagement of

labour, as well as, the machinery used.

20. All these facts have been highlighted to show

that the applicant, although, joined the investigation, but,

is not co-operating in the investigation. During the

investigation, the specimen signatures of applicant were

also obtained.

21. As per the status report, which has been filed

on 24.11.2024, the investigation from the main contractor

i.e. M/s Jandu Construction India Private Ltd. is to be

done in this case and the work done by applicant-Praveen

Kumar is yet to be taken into possession.

22. In the said status report, it has been

apprehended that in case, the interim order is made
8
absolute, the applicant may coerce the witnesses and may

also tamper with the evidence.

23. On 03.12.2024, supplementary status report

has been filed, in which, the same stand has been taken.

24. In the status report, which has been filed on

09.12.2024, a specific stand has been taken that the

specific information is required from applicant-Praveen

Kumar, as to in whose connivance, he has committed the

offence in question. As such, custodial interrogation of the

applicant has been prayed for.

25. Heard.

26. As per the stand taken in the status reports,

filed on different dates, a stand has been taken by the

police that the record pertaining to the work executed by

applicant Pradeep Kumar, is to be taken into possession.

But those status reports are totally silent as in whose

possession, the said record is lying.

27. On the basis of the vague averment made in the

status reports, the police is not able to make out a case for

custodial interrogation of the case. Even otherwise, as per

the complaint, made to the police, on the basis of which,

the FIR in question has been registered, the matter
9
pertains to the years 2016, 2017 and 2018, and

admittedly, it is not the case of the police that said record

is in possession of the applicant.

28. In this case, the learned counsel appearing for

the applicant has submitted that the requisite documents,

which were in possession of the applicant, have already

been submitted to the police.

29. The bail application cannot be rejected as a

matter of punishment, as pre-trial punishment is

prohibited under the law, since punishment can only be

inflicted after the trial.

30. Except the present case, no other case is stated

to have been registered against the applicant. As such, it

can be said that presumption of innocence is still available

to the applicant.

31. The role allegedly attributed to the applicant, in

the alleged crime, would be proved during the trial.

32. The applicant is a permanent resident of

Hamirpur and as such, it cannot be apprehended that, in

case, interim order is made absolute, he may not be

available for the trial.

10

33. So far as, the other apprehensions which have

been expressed by the police, in the status reports, are

concerned, for those apprehensions, reasonable conditions

can be imposed, in case, the interim order is made

absolute.

34. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the

view that the applicant is able to make out a case in his

favour.

35. Consequently, the interim order dated

18.11.2024 is made absolute, subject to the following

conditions :

a) That the applicant will join the investigation of
the case, as and when, called for, by the
Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;

b) That the applicant will not leave India, without
prior permission of the Court;

c) That the applicant will not directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so
as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts
to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and

d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the
trial Court on each and every date of hearing and
if prevented by any reason to do so seek
exemption from appearance by filing appropriate
application;

36. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,

shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
11
merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,

only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

37. The applicant is directed to move regular bail

application, when chargesheet will be filed in the

competent Court of law.

38. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at

liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of

the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.

( Virender Singh )
Judge
December 20, 2024
(Ankit)