Ram Shankar Tripathi vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court on the allegations that he is innocent and that he is not involved in the commission of the offences as alleged against him. I need not go into the facts in detail as the Petitioner herein has been denied bail by the learned Special Judge, Kullu on 8.4.2011. Thereafter he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 13.4.2011. The Petitioner, who is an employee of A.D. Hydro Power Project, submits that he has nothing to do with the case, save and except, that he has signed the cheques at the behest of one Mr. Tajender Kumar Tarehan, who was his superior counter signing authority. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that he had earlier applied for anticipatory bail on 17.2.2011 when his petition was disposed of as being infructuous as his interrogation was not required. He submits that he has been cooperating with the prosecution and in this view of the matter his custodial interrogation is not required.

After having perused the record, I do find it intriguing that instead of making cheques payable in favour of the Superintendent of Police/State Government for the alleged police protection which has been granted, they have been made payable in the name of one Mr. Ramesh Chander Volga. This person obviously had no authority to collect payment on behalf of the police and it is strange as to why a request made by the Superintendent of Police for payment is processed by payment to this particular person.

The case law has been considered by me in detail in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 116, 130 and 131 of 2011. I find force in the submissions of the learned Deputy Advocate General that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required to ascertain more about the facts leading to these murky affairs. The State cannot be denied the custody of the Petitioner for sustained custodial interrogation. The fear of the Petitioner that he will be subjected to third degree methods is not justified.

In these circumstances, this petition is rejected. It is directed that the Petitioner, during the time in custody, shall be subjected to medical examination everyday to ascertain as to whether he has been subjected to any custodial violence/torture. Needless to say that the Petitioner herein shall be produced before the Magistrate for remand to police custody/judicial custody in accordance with law, such prayer when made shall be considered by the learned Judge independently on his own without being in any manner influenced by the observation made by me in this order. It will be open to the Petitioner to apply for regular bail in accordance with law. One last point was urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relating to the intercepts of the telephone conversations and their legality. I am not going into that aspect so far as the present petition is concerned. It will be open to the Petitioner to urge these points by filing appropriate petition at the appropriate time.

There is, thus, no merit in this petition which is dismissed.