Sodhi Ram Vs State of Hp

¶1

2025:HHC:37802

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CrMPs(M) No. : 2395 & 2396 of 2025

¶4

Reserved on : 06.11.2025 Decided on : 11.11.2025

¶5

CrMP (M) No. 2395 of 2025 Sodhi Ram …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent ……………………………………………………………………………. CrMP (M) No. 2396 of 2025 Het Ram …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the applicant(s) : Mr. K.S. Gill, Advocate. For the respondent (s) : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, assisted by ASI Maheshwar Prashad, Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

¶10

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

2 2025:HHC:37802

¶12

Virender Singh, Judge.

¶13

The above-titled bail applications are being disposed of by this common order, as, both the applicants, apprehending their arrest, in a case, arising out of FIR No. No. 208 of 2025, dated 24.06.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., have filed these applications.

¶14

By way of these bail applications, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the BNSS), a prayer has been made by the applicants, to direct the IO/Police of Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the above-noted case.

¶15

It is the case of the applicants that the complaint, on the basis of which, the FIR in issue, has been registered, has been made by Ex-Pradhan Bagga Ram, with ulterior motive, as a counter blast to the complaint made by their co-accused-Salig Ram, regarding

¶16

3 2025:HHC:37802

¶17

the mismanagement and the irregularities done by said Bagga Ram, during his and his wife’s tenure.

¶18

It is the specific stand of the applicants that the alleged embezzlement, in fact, never happened, as, all the works were executed on spot and were duly verified by the concerned Department.

¶19

According to the applicants, they are permanent residents of the addresses, as mentioned, in their respective bail applications and belong to respectable families, as such, there is no likelihood of jumping over the bail, in case, they are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest.

¶20

The applicants had earlier tried their luck, by moving similar bail applications, before the learned trial Court, however, their bail applications have been dismissed, vide order dated 24.09.2025.

¶21

It is the further case of the applicants that even, on the ground of parity, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail, as their co-accused have already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order, dated

¶22

4 2025:HHC:37802

¶23

28.07.2025, passed in CrMPs (M) No. 1502 and 1503 of 2025.

¶24

Apart from this, Mr. K.S. Gill, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicants, for which, the applicants are ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the IO/Police of Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, under Section 482 of the BNSS.

¶25

On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail applications.

¶26

When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report on 25.09.2025, disclosing therein, that on 20.06.2025, complainant Bagga Ram, Ex-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Malehani, Tehsil Nalagarh, moved a complaint before the SDPO Nalagarh, mentioning therein, that he being Ex-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Malehani, is highlighting the serious irregularities committed in the development work of Gram Panchayat, Malehani.

¶27

10.1. According to him, forgery has been committed in registration of vendors and for supply of construction

¶28

5 2025:HHC:37802

¶29

material, quotations were forged, as in one document, three different dates have been mentioned.

¶30

10.2. According to the complainant, the quotations were submitted by only three persons, on the similar rates, for two different years i.e. 2022 and 2023. The said fact has been highlighted to show that there is connivance between the accused persons.

¶31

10.3. The complainant has further alleged that two different vendors, i.e. J.P. Enterprises and Davinder Kumar, used the same GST number and the quotations were not verified and majority of the quotations were not signed, nor, any stamp was there, as such, the validity of the same is stated to be under suspicion. The forged bills were prepared and the building material was transported in BMW and Swift cars, as well as, on motorcycle, which, according to the complainant, is not possible.

¶32

10.4. Lastly, he has got recorded that Pradhan and Secretary in connivance with each other, have embezzled the government money. As such, a prayer has been made to take action against them.

¶33

6 2025:HHC:37802

¶34

10.5. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and investigation was entrusted to ASI Maheshwar Prasad.

¶35

10.6. During investigation, on 29.06.2025, the quotations with regard to the supply of sand, sign boards, gravels and dust, etc., was called for the years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25. The comparison was done and it was found that the supply order was given to M/s Mahaveer Industries, Swarghat Road, Vaglehad. On the basis of the said supply order, the payment was made to M/s Mahaveer Industries, as per Bill No. 483, dated 01.04.2022, Bill No. 485, dated 01.04.2022, Bill No. 491, dated 04.04.2022, Bill No. 1123, dated 09.06.2022 and Bill No.1124, dated 09.06.2022. The photocopies of the record were taken into possession and the quotations were also analyzed.

¶36

10.7. As per the status report, the quotations submitted by J.P. Industries, Village and P/o Nalagarh and Devender Kumar, Katha Bathi, Village Ree, P/o Swahan, District Bilaspur, H.P., have not been signed by the owners

¶37

7 2025:HHC:37802

¶38

and on both the quotations, the same GST No.02SDJS04982A2Z6 has been mentioned. The registration numbers of the vehicles, as mentioned in the bills, submitted by M/s Mahaveer Industries, allegedly used for transportation of the material are stated to have been found to be of motorcycle, BMW and Swift cars. The statements of the witnesses, under Section 180 of BNSS were recorded.

¶39

10.8. It is the further case of police that as per the analysis of those bills, registration numbers of the vehicles, being PB07AV-7845, HP93-6791, HP93-9996 were checked on e-challan app. On checking, Vehicle No.PB07AV-7845 was found to be registered in the name of Paramdeep Singh son of Ajeet Singh, Vehicle No.HP93-6791, was found to be Swift car, registered in the name of Diwan Chand, son of Devi Ram and vehicle No.HP93-9996 was found to be BMW car, registered in the name of M/s Kanam Marketing Private Limited. As per the bills, the tiles, gravels and sand were transported in those vehicles.

¶40

10.9. It is the further case of the police that the

¶41

8 2025:HHC:37802

¶42

investigation is at the initial stage and record is yet to be verified and for that purpose, requisite correspondence was made with the Department.

¶43

10.10. On the basis of the above facts, interim protection was granted to the applicants and matter was adjourned for 09.10.2025.

¶44

10.11. On 09.10.2025, the police has filed the supplementary status report, disclosing therein, that the owners of the vehicles, the registration numbers of which were mentioned, in the bills were associated, who have disclosed that their vehicles were never used for transporting the construction material. Thereafter, a request was made to Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise Office, Nalagarh, regarding the verification of GSTIN No.02SDJS04982A2Z6. As per reply, the following information has been supplied:

¶45

“During investigation of the GSTIN No. 02SDJS04982A2Z6, it was found that this GSTIN does not exist, meaning thereby, that this is the wrong/fake GSTIN. Further, it is confirmed that no two tax payers/persons can have the same GSTINs as per the H.P. GST Act, 2017”.

¶46

9 2025:HHC:37802

¶47

10.12. The applicants are stated to have joined the investigation, however, they are not disclosing, anything in clear terms with regard to the quotations for the execution of the development work, in Gram Panchayat, Malehni.

¶48

10.13. In the status report, it has also been mentioned that from the perusal of record, it has been found that Bill No.483, dated 01.04.2022, was for putting the interlock tiles, in main Gali Part-1, Malehani, Bill No.485, dated 01.04.2022 was for laying the interlock tiles for the passage, near the house of Mangal Singh, Bill No.491, dated 01.04.2022 was for supplying the sand for Ambulance Road with interlocking tiles, in village Manval whereas, Bill No.1123, dated 09.06.2024, was for supplying of sand and Bill No.1124, dated 09.06.2024 was aggregated for making the road Pucca from the main road to the house of Rameshwar and Pyara.

¶49

10.14. Thereafter, as per the status report, correspondence was made with PWD, B&R and on 14.07.2025, the Committee of PWD, B&R, inspected the spot and submitted the report. The details of which have

¶50

10

¶51

2025:HHC:37802

¶52

been mentioned in the status report and the same are reproduced as under:

¶53

“With reference to above cited subject the works mentioned in the letter of SHO inspected along with ASI Police Station, Nalagarh, Pradhan G.P. Malehni and Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Malehni, Takniki Sahayak G.P. Malehani and Sh. Neeraj Kumar JE and Sh. Joginder Singh JE. The detailed report is as under:

¶54

1. Interlocking tiles main gali bhag-1 Malehani. This work executed by Panchayat and completed on dated 16.07.2022 as per entry in MB during inspection it is found that a portion of about 7.50 mtrs has damaged and in portion about 15 mtrs residents have laid concrete on tiles to avoid the seepage of water. Work executed as per estimate.

¶55

2. Interlocking tiles near of Mangal Singh house. The work executed at site as per estimate. The date of completion of this work is 10.05.2022 as per MB record.

¶56

3. Rogi Vahan with Interlocking tiles in village Manwal. As per site interlocking tiles has been provided from house of Sh. Babu Ram to Sh. Data Ram having width 0.90 mtrs to 1.20 mtrs and having length 112 mtrs, which can not be treated as Rogi Vahan road. More over the interlocking tiles provided about 30.00 mtrs inclined from existing jeepable road No. MB record is available at site whereas estimate approved by takniki sahayak the portion where interlocking tiles provided is taken in the estimate.

¶57

4. Pucca Rasta main road to Rameshwar and Pyara etc. The work executed as per estimate and recorded inthe MB.”

¶58

11 2025:HHC:37802

¶59

10.15. It has been mentioned in the status report that in this case, it has come on record that applicant-Sodhi Ram’s firm-Mahaveer Traders was given undue benefit for supplying construction material, for the development works, pertaining to Gram Panchayat Malehani, for the years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25, by accepting the quotation despite higher rates, for which, applicant-Het Ram, Ex-Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat was also penalized with recovery, after the inquiry, by the Lokpal.

¶60

10.16. According to the police, applicant-Sodhi Ram has not produced any record pertaining to the details of the vehicles, which were used for supply of the material, to Gram Panchayat Malehani.

¶61

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail applications.

¶62

The applicants are permanent residents of District Solan and their custodial interrogation has not been sought by the police, in this case. Hence, the bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited, under the law.

¶63

12 2025:HHC:37802

¶64

The role allegedly attributed against the applicants would be proved after the full fledged trial. Moreover, the allegations against the applicants are based upon the documentary evidence, which has been taken into possession by the police and it is not the case of the police that the documents, which are yet to be obtained, are in the possession of the applicants.

¶65

Moreover, the applicants are also entitled for relief of bail on the basis of parity, as, their co-accused have already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order, dated 28.07.2025, passed in CrMPs (M) No. 1502 and 1503 of 2025.

¶66

Considering all these facts, the applicants are able to make out a case for allowing the applications in their favour.

¶67

Consequently, interim orders, dated 25.09.2025 passed, in both the applications, are made absolute and the applicants are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their case, in case, arising out of FIR No. 208 of

¶68

2025, dated 24.06.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), of the BNSS,

¶69

13 2025:HHC:37802

¶70

with Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶71

This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶72

a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;

¶73

b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court;

¶74

c) That the applicants will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and

¶75

d) That the applicants shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application.

¶76

Any of the observations, made hereinabove,

¶77

shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail applications.

¶78

14 2025:HHC:37802

¶79

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at

¶80

liberty to move appropriate applications, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by any of the applicants.

¶81

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶82

November 11, 2025 ( rajni )

Sodhi Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

Sodhi Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Vs Hem Singh and another

State of Hp Vs Nirmla Devi

State of Hp Vs Pankaj Kumar

Keshav Dutt Shreedhar Vs State of H.P. and Ors.

Shamender Sood Vs Sanjay Dharmaik

Prem Pal Vs State of Hp