LAWS(HPH)-2014-3-55

RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On March 26, 2014
RAMESH CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for issuing direction to police of Police Station, Kajngra, District Kangra to admit the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 52 of 2014, dated 13.3.2014, registered at Police Station Kangra, under Sections 379, 411 IPC. The case of the prosecution as appears from the police report is that police of CIA Staff raided the house of one Sham Lal, who was working as Beldar in HPPWD Wing Lanj from where it is alleged that 21 bags of cement stamped of 2014 being stamp "not for sale (only HP Government Supply)" were recovered. The said Sham Lal was initially arrested, but is now on bail. The petitioner is stated to be a government contractor and the cement is alleged to have been issued to him. It is alleged that his house is used as a store for carrying out this illegal sale and transportation of cement, which is meant for government supplies.

(2.) Mr. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. A.Gs with Ms. Parul Negi, Deputy Advocate General, has strenuously argued that not only the petitioner, but even Sham Lal alongwith certain government officials are involved in a racket of illegal sale of cement meant for H.P. Government supply.

(3.) On the other hand, Sh. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ishita Bhandari, Advocate has strenuously contended that though the petitioner is a contractor but no cement meant for government supply for the year 2014 has been released till date in his favour. According to him, the petitioner cannot be connected with the offence, rather it is the claim of the petitioner that cement has been recovered from Sham Lal, who admittedly is none other than the Beldar in H.P.P.W.D., and if all the facts and circumstances are taken into consideration then the pilferage of cement meant for government supply appears to be at the behest and inter-se the officers and officials of Public Works Department and not the petitioner.