Rampal Alias Rampal Mor v. State of Haryana

IN Rampal @

State of H

Date of d Date of U

CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1of the B anticipato under Sec Sections Corruptio

¶2complaint complaina under Har Officer, P office alo Tehsildar had produ THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

@ Rampal Mor

V/s Haryana

decision: 06.07.2026 Uploading : 07.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Lalit Pardhan, Advocate Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the p Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa ory bail in FIR No. 292 dated 0 ctions 406, 409, 420, 467, 46 13(1), 13(A) read with Sect on Act, 1988 registered at Police As per the prosecution cas t of Raj Kumar, District R ant has alleged that Pawan Kum ryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam in Public Works Department (B&R ong with the present petitioner . It has been further alleged by t uced a compensation bill relatin

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-14602-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. , Senior DAG Haryana. present petition under Section 4 anhita seeking the concession

04.09.2023 for offences punisha 68, 471, 120-B and 201 IPC a tion 13(2) of the Prevention Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani. e, the FIR was registered on Revenue Officer, Bhiwani. T mar, who was working as Patw n the office of the Land Acquisiti R), Bhiwani, frequently visited r, who was then serving as N the complainant that Pawan Kum ng to land acquisition proceedin

of ble of The wari his aib mar

for his sig Subseque declined inquiry, it forged on amounts investigat had allege beneficiar motion w disclosure that a lar compensa crores wa receive an while serv played an disbursem

¶3has been Learned c allegation According the FIR i complaina gnatures but he refused to sign t ntly, on 31.08.2023, several bil by the complainant, were ag t was discovered that the signat n the Electronic Payment Syst had been disbursed into the ac tion revealed that government fu edly been siphoned off through ries. On these set of allegation whereinafter several accused pe es were made during investigat rge-scale fraud involving prepa ation bills was committed and a as diverted into the accounts of 3 ny compensation. It has been f ving as Naib Tehsildar in the c n active role in the conspirac ment of government funds. Learned counsel for the r has been falsely implicated into registered on the basis of a m counsel has further iterated tha ns against the petitioner attributin g to learned counsel, the only a is that co-accused Pawan Kum ant along with the petitioner. Le

the same due to incomplete reco lls, including the same bill earl gain presented before him. Up tures of the complainant had be tem documents and compensati ccounts of fictitious persons. T unds meant for genuine landown h forged documents and fabrica ns, the investigation was set in ersons were arrested and vario tion. The prosecution has alleg aration of forged land acquisiti an amount of approximately ₹2 39 persons who were not entitled further asserted that the petition concerned office up to 30.06.20 cy and facilitated the fraudul petitioner has iterated that o the FIR in question and the sa motivated and mala fide complai at there are no specific or dir ng any overt act or criminal inte allegation against the petitioner mar used to visit the office of earned counsel has emphasized t

ord. lier pon een The ners ted nto ous ged .50 d to ner, 23, ent me int. rect ent. r in

there is n any fake embezzlem has no ro allegation further in which, by made the prosecutio official re Learned investigat shall abid arrest bail receipt o unsupport record, re allegation It has be Kumar, S been gran these subm for.

¶4anticipato o allegation that the petitioner h e bill, received any amount ment of government funds. It h r has already been retired before ole whatsoever in the subseque ns against the petitioner have su nvestigation on the basis of dis y itself, have no evidentiary valu sole basis for accusation of th on case is based upon documen ecords are already in the posse counsel has asserted that the tion; shall not tamper with evid de by all the condition(s) impos l. It has been further contended of commission/share from the ted by any independent evidenc ecovery or other material has b n that the petitioner has received en further submitted that the m Suresh Kumar, Pinki, Tinku Yad nted the concession of regular b missions, the grant of concessio Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by argu

has forged any document, prepar or participated in the alleg has been further contended that registration of the present FIR a ent investigation. Furthermore, urfaced only during the course sclosure statements of co-accus ue in the eyes of law and cannot he petitioner. Moreover, the ent ntary evidence and all the relev ession of the investigating agen petitioner is willing to join dence or influence any witness a sed in case he is enlarged on p d that the allegations regarding alleged embezzled amount ce. No bank transaction, financ been produced to substantiate d any amount from the co-accus main/principal accused i.e. Paw dav & Dinesh Kumar, have alrea bail by this Court. On strength on of anticipatory bail is entrea counsel has opposed the grant uing that the allegations against

red ged of sed, be tire ant ncy. pre-are cial ed. wan ady of ted

conspirac land acq investigat posted as Public W accused P Kumar (K beneficiar prepared disbursem in favour has been f from the approxim is still un transactio which cus nature of influence According petition.

¶5gone throu r are serious as he has played y involving large-scale embezz quisition compensation. Acco tion conducted so far has reveal Naib Tehsildar in the office o Works Department (B&R), Bhiw Pawan Kumar (Patwari), Suresh Kanungo), Sunil Kumar (Compu ries. Learned State counsel ha and processed forged compensa ment of government funds amoun of persons who were not entitle further contended that the role o material collected during inve ately ₹1.40 crores from the emb r in cash. Learned State counsel h nderway and forged documents, ons and other incriminating ma stodial interrogation of the petiti f allegations, if armed with a pr the witnesses & may imp gly, a prayer has been made I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c

an active role in a well-plann zlement of public funds meant ording to learned counsel, led that the petitioner, while bei of the Land Acquisition Collect wani, acted in connivance with c h Kumar (Office Assistant), Man uter Operator) and several priv as emphasized that they alleged ation bills and facilitated fraudul nting to approximately ₹2.50 cro ed to receive any compensation of the petitioner is clearly borne o estigation. Furthermore, a sum ezzled amount has been paid to has submitted that the investigati records relating to the fraudul aterial are yet to be recovered ioner is necessary. Considering rotective order, the petitioner m pede the ongoing investigati for the dismissal of the inst unsel for the rival parties and ha case.

ned for ing tor, co-noj vate dly ent ores n. It out of ent for may on. ant

¶6Hon'ble S Punjab, 2 It would be apposite to re Supreme Court titled as Devinde 2025 INSC 320, relevant whereo "21. The parameters for grant like corruption are required to granted only in exceptional circu of the view that the applicant has allegations are politically motivat hand is concerned, it cannot be s have been made out by the petit bail and there is no frivolity in the

¶22In the aforesaid context, Central Bureau of Investigation 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court exp "28. While granting bail, of accusation, the natur severity of the punishm character of the accused, accused, reasonable poss accused at the trial, rea being tampered with, the other similar consideratio the purpose of granting b "reasonable grounds for which means the Court d satisfy it as to whether the and that the prosecution evidence in support of the to have the evidence estab reasonable doubt."

¶23The presumption of inn consideration for grant of an innocence is one of the consider mind while considering the plea f to balance the cause of the accus solicitous homage to the accuse cause of public justice.

efer herein to a judgment of er Kumar Bansal vs. The State of reads as under: of anticipatory bail in a serious offe be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can mstances where the Court is prima fa been falsely enroped in the crime or ted or are frivolous. So far as the case said that any exceptional circumstan tioner accused for grant of anticipat e prosecution. we may refer to a pronouncement v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (20 pressed thus: the court has to keep in mind the nat re of evidence in support thereof, ment which conviction will entail, circumstances which are peculiar to sibility of securing the presence of asonable apprehension of the witnes larger interests of the public/State a ons. It has also to be kept in mind that bail, the Legislature has used the wo r believing" instead of "the eviden dealing with the grant of bail can o ere is a genuine case against the accu n will be able to produce prima fa e charge. It is not expected, at this sta blishing the guilt of the accused beyo ocence, by itself, cannot be the s nticipatory bail. The presumption rations, which the court should keep for anticipatory bail. The salutary rul sed and the cause of public justice. O ed's liberty can, sometimes, defeat

e of ence be acie e at nces tory t in 013) ture sses t for ords nce" only used acie age, ond sole of p in le is

¶7have bee which by servant is offence a administra

¶24If liberty is to be denied society, then the courts should no overwhelming considerations in anticipatory bail, it has to be den say that once the investigation is may consider to grant regular indulging in corruption.

¶25Avarice is a common fra famous pronouncement that all m unsavoury cynicism that it sugges as more than two centuries ago, people generally corrupt, liberty Romain Rolland lamented that F without indignation. Corruption Corruption, a word of wide conn spheres of our day to day life, al allowing decisions and actions wrongs of a case but by the prosp considerations.

¶26If even a fraction of what of corruption to be true, then it w that it is the rampant corruptio placed persons that has led to ec asked to name one sole factor tha society to prosperity, undeniably developing country faces a mena hired assassins to its law and ord at the higher echelons of the Gove As per the stand of the Stat en levelled against the petitio r pertain to offences under the P y their very nature are serious s not merely an offence agains against the society at large, e ation. Thus, the Courts are,

to an accused to ensure corruption f ot hesitate in denying such liberty. Wh the nature aforesaid require denial nied. It is altogether a different thing over and charge-sheet is filed, the co bail to a public servant - accused ailty of mankind and Robert Walpo men have their price, notwithstanding sts, is not very far from truth. As far b it was Burke who cautioned: "Amon cannot last long". In more recent yea France fell because there was corrupt has, in it, very dangerous potentialit notation has, in respect of almost all ll the world over, the limited meaning to be influenced not by the rights spects of monetary gains or other self was the vox pupuli about the magnit would not be far removed from the tru on indulged in with impunity by hig conomic unrest in this country. If on at effectively arrested the progress of ly it is corruption. If the society in ace greater than even the one from der, then that is from the corrupt eleme ernment and of the political parties." te, indubitably, serious allegatio oner. The allegations against Prevention of Corruption Act, 19 and grave. Corruption by pub st an individual but constitutes eroding public confidence in therefore, required to exercise

free here l of g to ourt d of ole's ack ng a ars, tion ties. g of or fish tude uth, ghly e is our n a ents ons blic an

greater de such case the presen public fu allegedly considera to conduc assess wh prima fac interrogat raised on bail at th collected evidence, considere the prosec Officer a specifical scheme. forged do and the fi is still und has been official re misplaced egree of caution while consideri s. From the perusal of the recor nt FIR pertain to a systematic unds earmarked for land acquis misappropriated exceeds ₹2 ation of plea for grant of anticipa ct a meticulous examination o hether the material collected d cie discloses the involvement of tion is necessary in the factual m behalf of the petitioner that no r in the FIR cannot, by itself, be his stage. In the considered op during the course of inves electronic evidence and ot d while examining a prayer for cution has placed reliance upon and the disclosure statement ly naming the petitioner as an a The stand of the investigating a ocuments and other incriminatin inancial trail regarding the allege der investigation. The nature of committed through abuse of off ecords. The principle of parity a d. The co-accused have been gra

ng the grant of anticipatory bail rd, it emerges that the allegations c and organized embezzlement sition compensation. The amou

2.50 crores.. At the stage atory bail, the Court is not requir f the evidence but is required during the course of investigati the accused and whether custod milieu of the case. The contenti o specific role is attributed to e a ground for grant of anticipato pinion of this Court, the mater stigation, including documenta ther circumstance(s), are to pre-arrest bail. In the present ca the report of the District Reven t of co-accused Pawan Kum active participant in the fraudul agency before this Court is that ng material are yet to be recover ed distribution of embezzled fun allegations reflects that the offen ficial position and manipulation as invoked by the petitioner is a anted the concession of regular b

l in s in of unt of red to dial ory rial ary be ase, nue mar ent red nds nce n of also

whereas th on a diffe nature an According principle circumsta

¶8governme previous allegation during th document this Court conspirac becomes also to tra exchequer bail to the is that the money tri conspirac evidence, he petitioner seeks the concessio erent footing. Each case must be nd role of each accused is gly, the petitioner cannot claim of parity is not an absolute right ances of each accused. Furthermore, the plea tha ent employee and had served complaint cannot, by itself, ns. The allegations show misuse r at the relevant time and such fa he course of trial. The argume tary evidence and, therefore, t r is unnecessary is also without m t in cases involving forgery, ma y among multiple accused, t necessary to ascertain the know ace the money trail. The magnitu r, the systematic nature of the r as public servants weigh heav e petitioner. The stand of the inv e custodial interrogation of the p ial, identify the role of other a y. Furthermore, the plea of r is a disputed question of fa which cannot be adjudicated u

on of anticipatory bail which stan evaluated on its own facts and to be independently assess m parity with the co-accused as and depends upon the conduct a at the petitioner was a retir d for several years without a outweigh the seriousness of of an official position held by factors are matters to be consider ent that the entire case rests the custodial interrogation of merit. In the considered opinion anipulation of official records a the custodial interrogation of wledge and intent of the accused ude of the alleged loss to the pub offence, the position held by t vily against the grant of pre-arr vestigating agency before this Co petitioner is necessary to trace accused and to unearth the larg f false implication raised by act and involves appreciation upon at this stage. The same c

nds ed. red any red on n of ften d as blic rest ourt ger of

only be a course of bail at thi nay plaus deciphere FIR. Fur which the to mentio the Court protecting and nature and free i iniquities that prima which ha establish a grant ant impedime SCC 187 (SCC p. 1 adjudicated upon the conclusion trial. In the considered opinion is stage is likely to hamper the sible cause has been shown at ed that the petitioner has been f rthermore, the Court below has r after considering the relevant e name of the petitioner surfaced on here that while considering a t has to equilibrate between s g societal interests. The Court ou e of the offence; the role attribut investigation as also the deeper on the society. At this stage, the a facie case is not made out ag as come on record and the pre a reasonable basis for the accusa ticipatory bail to the petitione ent in effective investigation. In : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon 189, para 6) "6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie well-ensconced with a favourable a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the

n of the investigation or during of this Court, granting anticipato on-going investigation. No cau this stage, from which it can falsely implicated into the pres s already declined the plea of factors, including the manner d during investigation. It is befitti plea for grant of anticipatory b afeguarding individual rights a ught to reckon with the magnitu ted to the accused; the need for f and wider impact of such alleg ere is no material on record to ho gainst the petitioner. The mater eliminary investigation, appears ations. Thus, it is not appropriate er, as it would necessarily cau n State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) n'ble Supreme Court held as unde ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who e order under Section 438 of the Code rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w

ory use be ent in ing ail, ude fair ged old rial to e to use 7) 7 er : n is o is e. In s of also uch

¶9and the g effective allegation necessity the consid anticipato

10.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 06, 2 Ajay

protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o In the present case, the inve grant of anticipatory bail at this investigation. Considering th ns, the specific role assigned, the of custodial interrogation for ve dered opinion that the petitioner ory bail in the factual milieu of th In view of the prevenient rati The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders." estigation is still at a crucial sta juncture will impede the fair a he nature and seriousness of e stage of investigation as also erification of facts, this Court is does not deserve the concession he case in hand. iocination, it is ordained thus: d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

e is e to ught ods y all ible nces age s of n of