Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhavita Tandon vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 March, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
( 2025:HHC:5118 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. MP (M) No.349 of 2025
Decided on : 6th March, 2025
Bhavita Tandon ...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. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General assisted by Inspector
Kulwant Singh, I.O. SV & ACB,
Kullu.
Virender Singh, Judge(oral)
ApplicantBhavita Tandon, 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 her 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.
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
2. According to the applicant, she 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.
4. The applicant has tried her luck by moving
similar application before Special Judge, Kullu, H.P.,
however, her application has been dismissed by the
learned Special Judge, vide order dated 22.2.2025.
5. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Arsh
Chauhan, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the
applicant, for which, she is ready to abide by, in case,
ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the
trial.
6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to allow the application.
7. 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 AntiCorruption Bureau, against Bhavita Tandon
3 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
(applicant), upon which, the FIR in question has been
registered.
7.1. 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.
7.2. 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
7.3. Thereafter, in order to get the information with
regard to the notices, the complainant has deputed his
nephew to the office of Bhavita Tandon (applicant) on
4.2.2025, when Bhavita Tandon (applicant) 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.
4 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
7.4. 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.
7.5. 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.
7.6. Thereafter, pretrap 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
7.7. Apart from this, two independent witnesses
namely; Hari Singh and Prince Korpal, were also
associated. Thereafter, the currency of Rs.1,10,000/, in
5 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
the denomination of Rs.500/ , total 220 notes were
handed over to complainant Prittam Chand to pay the
amount to Bhavita Tandon (applicant). Thereafter, powder
of phenolphthalein was applied on the currency notes.
7.8. On 7.2.2025, at about 01.00. p.m., the team
under the leadership of Inspector Ashok Kumar,
complainant Prittam Chand, shadow witness Hari Singh,
independent witness Prince Korpal, as well as, other police
official, reached at the spot i.e. Regional Hospital/Food
Safety Office, Kullu
7.9. Complainant Prittam Chand was called by
Bhavita Tandon (applicant), to Food Safety Office, Kullu.
All the members of trap team were deputed at their
respective places. Thereafter, after half an hour,
complainant Prittam Chand had come out, as the applicant
want to talk with him in isolation. Thereafter, both of them
reached at gallary and started talking with each other.
7.10. Thereafter, one another person was called by
Bhavita Tandon (applicant) on phone. His name has been
disclosed by complainant, later on, as Pankaj Kumar, Food
Safety Officer. Thereafter, Bhag Singh, Manager of the
6 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
complainant also reached there. All the four had
discussed the matter for half an hour.
7.11. Thereafter, Bhag Singh was asked to leave the
said place. Subsequently, another person, wearing blue
jacket, whose name has been disclosed by the
complainant, as Keshav Ram, ClassIV employee of the
office of the applicant, came there and all the four had
gone to the office of Food Safety Department. Thereafter,
the complainant had gone to the office of Pankaj, Food
Safety Officer and given signal, which was decided earlier,
that the amount has been paid.
7.12. Meanwhile, Keshav came out from the office of
Pankaj, who was caught by SI Sher Singh and Sub
Inspector Narayan Lal. By that time, Bhavita Tandon
(applicant) also came out and she was caught by Constable
Raksha and Constable Rekha.
7.13. When, the vigilance team went to the office of
Pankaj, no one was found there. He was directed to come
to his office, on phone. After sometime, he came to the
office of the applicant Bhavita Tandon, upon which, the
complainant had disclosed that when they were discussing
7 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
the matter in the gallery on ground floor, then, on the
direction of Bhavita Tandon, the bribe money was handed
over to Pankaj, whereas, Pankaj has insisted upon to hand
over the said amount to Keshav.
7.14. When, Keshav had gone to the office of Pankaj,
complainant had handed over the bribe money to Keshav
on his demand. Thereafter, he put the said money in his
right pocket of the jacket.
8. The other codal formalities were completed and
all the three accused were arrested.
9. The accused persons have moved the
application for bail, before the learned Special Judge,
Kullu, however, the same application was dismissed on
22.2.2025. Now, all the accused are stated to be in judicial
custody.
10. As per the status report, earlier, a case bearing
FIR No.6/09, under Section 7 and 13(2) of PC Act was
registered against the applicant with Police Station,
SV&ACB, Kangra at Dharamshala, in which, she has been
acquitted vide order dated 2.11.2016. It has also been
8 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
mentioned, in the status report that against the said
acquittal, no appeal has been preferred.
11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to dismiss the application.
12. The investigation, in the present case is
complete and the applicant is in judicial custody.
Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that no
useful purpose would be served by keeping her, in judicial
custody, that too, for indefinite period.
13. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be
rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pretrial
punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment
can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by the
competent Court of law.
14. In the status report, no apprehension has been
put forth to oppose the prayer for bail. As per the status
report, apart from ascertaining the criminal antecedents of
the applicant, the following proceedings are yet to be
conducted:
i) From the voice recorder, the recording is to be
extracted by State Forensic Science Laboratory;
ii voice samples of the accused are to be obtained;
9 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
iii) voice samples are to be compared with the voice
recorded in the voice recorder;
iv) result from RFSL, Mandi, due to hand wash
sample of Keshav, jacket and currency notes;
and
v) the mobile phone of the accused persons have
been sent to SFSL Junga and result is still
awaited.
15. So far as the above proceedings, which are yet
to be conducted, in this case, are concerned, there is
nothing on the file, at this stage, to show as to how the
custody of the applicant would facilitate the police to
conduct those proceedings. It is not the case of the police
that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required,
in this case.
16. The legislature, in its wisdom has added the
proviso to Section 480 (ii) of BNSS, according to which, the
Court may release a person on bail, if such person is a
child or is a woman or is sick or infirm.
17. Considering all these facts, this Court is
of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed
and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on bail in case FIR No.1 of 2025, dated
07.02.2025, registered, under Section 7 of the PC Act, with
10 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
Police Station, SV & ACB, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., on
her furnishing personal bond, in the sum of Rs.70,000/,
with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu,
H.P.
18. This order of release, however, shall be subject
to the following conditions :
“a) Applicant shall make herself available for the
purpose of interrogation, if so required and
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;
b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence nor hamper the investigation of the
case in any manner whatsoever;
c) Applicant shall not make any inducement,
threat or promises to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade them from disclosing such facts
to the Court or the Police Office; and
d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India
without the prior permission of the Court.”
19. Any of the observations made herein above shall
not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of
the case as these observations are confined only to the
disposal of the present bail application.
11 ( 2025:HHC:5118 )
20. It is made clear that the respondentState is at
liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of
the bail conditions is found to be violated by the bail
applicant/petitioner.
21. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of
the bail order to the Superintendent Jail, District Jail,
Kullu, District Kullu through email, with a direction to
enter the date of grant of bail in the eprison software.
22. In case, the applicant is not released within a
period of seven days from the date of grant of bail,
the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kullu, District Kullu,
is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA,
Kullu. The Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Kullu, District
Kullu, is further directed that if the applicant fails to
furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this
Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the
said fact be submitted to this Court.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
March 06, 2025(ps)
Digitally signed by RAJNI
Date: 2025.03.06 18:29:28 IST
[ad_1]
Source link