AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Kumar Verma, J
Present Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 6 of 2022 registered at Vigilance, Establishment Sector Haldwani, District Nainital for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (1) (a) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the applicant has retired from the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest on 31.07.2022. After his retirement, a First Information Report was lodged by Inspector Vinod Kumar Yadav, Vigilance, Establishment, Sector Nainital at Haldwani on 08.08.2022. As per the allegation of the First Information Report, an open enquiry was conducted by Vigilance Establishment. During the open enquiry, it was found that the present applicant violated the guidelines, issued by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India and he was involved in illegal construction works. He violated the provisions of The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Indian Forest Act, 1927, by collusion with the employees, officers and contractors, due to which, huge loss was suffered by the Department.
Mr. S.T. Bharadwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that the applicant released Rs. 90,00,000/- in favour of the contractor Aureole Electricals and Electronics Private Limited for the construction of electric line. He illegally released Rs.30,05,097/- in favour of Goyal Super Store for purpose of electronic and electrical goods. Further, applicant released Rs. 18,54,621/- in favour of Jai Construction Company for construction of Administrative Building. He released Rs. 45,23,217/- in favour of Shark Infrastructure, Pannu Enterprises and Dhruv Construction for construction of road. He illegally released Rs. 9,27,870/- in favour of Contractor Ramesh Singh Rawat for construction of security wall of Bada. Applicant illegally released Rs. 5,94,000/- in favour of M/s K.K. Contractor for construction of light road. He released Rs. 25,00,000/- in favour of Contractor Amit Kumar Singh for the renovation work and Rs. 35,00,000/- in favour of Contractor Vikram Singh and others for construction of security wall for the protection from the elephants.
Mr. S.T. Bharadwaj, Advocate submitted that the applicant utilized the said amounts for different works, for which, no administrative, financial or technical approval were granted. Therefore, the present case falls under the category of misappropriation, for which, huge loss was suffered by the State Government.
On the other hand, Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India made declaration for the establishment of Tiger Safari Project during his visit in 2019 in Corbett Tiger Reserve under Compartment Nos. 3 and 8 in 106.16 hectare land of Pakhrao area of Kalagarh, Forest Division of Corbett Tiger Reserve. Therefore, a Committee was constituted for approval of project of more than Rs. 1 Crore under the Chairmanship of Chief Conservator of Forest. In the meeting, held on 30.06.2020, the Committee took the decision to establish Tiger Safari and Rescue Centre under project. The Director, Tiger Reserve through its letter dated 06.10.2020 requested to the Chief Wildlife Warden to provide administrative/financial approval for establishment of Tiger Safari. Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand through its letter dated 07.10.2020 granted its principle administrative approval for establishment of Tiger Safari in Pakhrao Range under Corbett Tiger Reserve Division. The Government of Uttarakhand through its letter dated 18.08.2020 sought approval from the Centre Government for diversion of 106.16 hectare of forest land in Compartment Nos. 6 and 8 of Kalagarh, Tiger Reserve of Pakhro Range. The Government of India accorded “in principle” approval for non forestry use of 106.16 hectare of forest land. Thereafter, Additional Chief Conservator of Forest through its letter dated 27.11.2020 requested to the Principle Secretary of Forest, Government of Uttarakhand to place the DPR of Rs. 2681.06 lakh. The aforesaid amount was released after T.A.C. and after getting financial approval. The then Deputy Conservator of Forest, Akhilesh Tiwari invited tenders, finalized the tenders and issued work orders on 28.11.2020, 18.02.2021 and 05.03.2021 respectively. On 11.12.2020, the Hon’ble Forest Minister of Uttarakhand laid the foundation stone of Pakhrao Tiger Safari.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant was transferred as DFO Kalagarh in Tiger Reserve. He took the charge on 29.04.2021. He inspected the constructions. During the inspection, he found that some additional works were also required in compliance of National Tiger Conservation Authority and CZA guidelines. The Hon’ble Forest Minister directed to complete all the construction work. All the works done by the applicant are forestry work as per the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and guidelines. He did all the works as per rules and regulations and as directed by the higher authorities. In the circumstances, it is clear that no misappropriation has been done by him. In support of the said submissions, Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, has annexed the copies of Rules and Guidelines.
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, submitted that since the applicant was feeling chest pain, therefore, he went to Sardar Ballabh Bhai, Hospital, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for treatment on 02.12.2022. The Doctors conducted E.C.G. and Coronary Angiography, in which, three arteries were found blockage, 90% each. On 23.12.2022, he went to Max Hospital and consulted with Dr. Amit Malik, who fixed 27.12.2022 for operation. On 23.12.2022, when the applicant was arrested, he had chest pain, therefore, he was brought to Soban Singh Jeena Base Hospital, Haldwani by Police on 24.12.2022.
Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, it is found whether any money has been misappropriated by the applicant or not is a matter for trial. At the stage of considering the bail application, it would not be appropriate for the Court to undertake meticulous examination of the evidence, collected by the Investigating Officer. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the applicant of a fair trial.
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. There is no contention of learned counsel for the State that the applicant, if he is released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar. Therefore, there is no likelihood of applicant absconding as well. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not a punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. Applicant is in judicial custody since 24.12.2022.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no good reason to detain the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, that too, after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.
In the result, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
The Bail Application is allowed.
Let the applicant Kishan Chand be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant would surrender his passport to the Trial Court;
(ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;
(iii) He shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment.
It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the Court for cancellation of bail.