Punjab & Haryana HC: Bail Granted to DHBVN Officials in Corruption and Forgery Case, Contractor’s Bail Not Cancelled

Case Name: Dharampal v. State of Haryana; Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana; Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: January 10, 2020
Citation: CRM-M Nos. 43292, 43606, and 51191 of 2019 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh

Held: The High Court granted regular bail to three DHBVN officials accused in a corruption and forgery case relating to inflated and forged bills submitted by a contractor for electrical works. The Court held that since co-accused officials Baljeet Singh and Jora Singh, who were similarly placed, had already been granted bail, the present petitioners were also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. It further clarified that the bail granted earlier to the contractor Kuldeep Singh could not be cancelled in the absence of any allegation of misuse or fraud in obtaining it, and cancellation could only be sought through proper legal procedure under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC.

Summary: The FIR was registered against DHBVN officials and contractor Kuldeep Singh under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 167, and 409 IPC, along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for alleged manipulation of bills under a work order in Jind. An inquiry revealed that officials had verified bills without physical inspection of materials and that signatures on final bills appeared forged. While the contractor was granted bail earlier in September 2019, two other officials were later granted bail in December 2019. The present petitioners sought bail on parity, as they too were not the final sanctioning authorities. The Court accepted this argument, noting that the challan had already been filed and the FSL report was awaited. On the issue of cancellation of bail granted to the contractor, the Court held that once bail was granted after due consideration, it could only be cancelled if the accused misused liberty, interfered with investigation, tampered with witnesses, or absconded, none of which were alleged here.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petitions and granted regular bail to the three DHBVN officials, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It further held that the contractor’s bail could not be cancelled in the absence of misuse, leaving it open to the complainant to seek cancellation only through lawful remedy.