Rampal Alias Rampal Mor Vs State of Haryana

The petitioner has filed the p resent petition under Section 4 82 of the B haratiya Nagarik Suraksha S a nhita seeking the concession of anticipat o ry bail in FIR No. 292 dated 0 4.09.2023 for offences punishable under Se c tions 406, 409, 420, 467, 4 6 8, 471, 120-B and 201 IPC a nd Sections 13(1), 13(A) read with Sec t ion 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrupti o n Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani. 2. As per the prosecution case, the FIR was registered on the complain t of Raj Kumar, District R evenue Officer, Bhiwani. T he complain a nt has alleged that Pawan Ku m ar, who was working as Pat w ari under Ha r yana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam i n the office of the Land Acquisit i on Officer, P ublic Works Department (B& R ), Bhiwani, frequently visited his office al o ng with the present petitione r , who was then serving as Naib Tehsildar. It has been further alleged by t he complainant that Pawan Ku m ar AJAY KUMAR had prod u ced a compensation bill relati n g to land acquisition proceedi n gs 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CRM-M-14602-2026 2

¶14

for his si g natures but he refused to sign t he same due to incomplete rec o rd. Subsequently, on 31.08.2023, several bi l ls, including the same bill ear l ier declined by the complainant, were a g ain presented before him. U p on inquiry, i t was discovered that the signa t ures of the complainant had b e en forged o n the Electronic Payment Sys t em documents and compensat i on amounts had been disbursed into the a c counts of fictitious persons. T he investiga t ion revealed that government f u nds meant for genuine landow n ers had alleg e dly been siphoned off throug h forged documents and fabricated beneficia r ies. On these set of allegatio n s, the investigation was set i n to motion w hereinafter several accused p e rsons were arrested and vari o us disclosur e s were made during investiga t ion. The prosecution has alle g ed that a la r ge-scale fraud involving prep a ration of forged land acquisit i on compens a tion bills was committed and a n amount of approximately ₹2.50 crores w a s diverted into the accounts of 3 9 persons who were not entitle d to receive a n y compensation. It has been f urther asserted that the petitio n er, while ser v ing as Naib Tehsildar in the c oncerned office up to 30.06.2023, played a n active role in the conspira c y and facilitated the fraudulent disburse m ent of government funds.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitione r has been falsely implicated int o the FIR in question and the same has been registered on the basis of a m otivated and mala fide compla i nt. Learned c ounsel has further iterated th a t there are no specific or di r ect allegatio n s against the petitioner attributi n g any overt act or criminal int e nt. Accordin g to learned counsel, the only a llegation against the petitione r in the FIR i s that co-accused Pawan Ku m ar used to visit the office of the AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43I attest to the accuracy andcomplain a nt along with the petitioner. L e arned counsel has emphasized that integrity of this document

¶16

CRM-M-14602-2026 3

¶17

there is no allegation that the petitioner h as forged any document, prepa r ed any fak e bill, received any amount or participated in the alle g ed embezzle m ent of government funds. It h as been further contended that the petitione r has already been retired before registration of the present FIR a nd has no r o le whatsoever in the subsequ e nt investigation. Furthermore, the allegatio n s against the petitioner have s u rfaced only during the course of further i n vestigation on the basis of di s closure statements of co-accu s ed, which, b y itself, have no evidentiary val u e in the eyes of law and cannot be made the sole basis for accusation of t h e petitioner. Moreover, the en t ire prosecuti o n case is based upon docume n tary evidence and all the relevant official r e cords are already in the poss e ssion of the investigating age n cy. Learned counsel has asserted that the petitioner is willing to join the investiga t ion; shall not tamper with evi d ence or influence any witness a nd shall abi d e by all the condition(s) impo s ed in case he is enlarged on p rearrest bai l . It has been further contende d that the allegations regarding the receipt o f commission/share from the alleged embezzled amount are unsuppor t ed by any independent eviden c e. No bank transaction, finan c ial record, r e covery or other material has b een produced to substantiate the allegatio n that the petitioner has receive d any amount from the co-accused. It has been further submitted that the m ain/principal accused i.e. Pa w an Kumar, S uresh Kumar, Pinki, Tinku Ya d av & Dinesh Kumar, have alre a dy been gra n ted the concession of regular b ail by this Court. On strength of these sub m issions, the grant of concessi o n of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

¶18

Per contra , learned State c ounsel has opposed the grant of AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43I attest to the accuracy andanticipat o ry bail to the petitioner by arg u ing that the allegations against the integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-14602-2026 4

¶20

petitione r are serious as he has played an active role in a well-plan n ed conspiracy involving large-scale embez z lement of public funds meant for land ac q uisition compensation. Acc o rding to learned counsel, the investiga t ion conducted so far has revea l ed that the petitioner, while be i ng posted as Naib Tehsildar in the office o f the Land Acquisition Collec t or, Public W orks Department (B&R), Bhi w ani, acted in connivance with c o- accused P awan Kumar (Patwari), Sures h Kumar (Office Assistant), Ma n oj Kumar ( K anungo), Sunil Kumar (Comp u ter Operator) and several pri v ate beneficia r ies. Learned State counsel h a s emphasized that they allege d ly prepared and processed forged compens a tion bills and facilitated fraudulent disburse m ent of government funds amou n ting to approximately ₹2.50 cr o res in favour of persons who were not entitl e d to receive any compensatio n . It has been f urther contended that the role o f the petitioner is clearly borne o ut from the material collected during inv e stigation. Furthermore, a sum of approximately ₹1.40 crores from the embezzled amount has been paid to the petitione r in cash. Learned State counsel h as submitted that the investigat i on is still u n derway and forged documents, records relating to the fraudulent transacti o ns and other incriminating m a terial are yet to be recovered for which cu s todial interrogation of the petit i oner is necessary. Considering the nature o f allegations, if armed with a p r otective order, the petitioner m ay influence the witnesses & may im p ede the ongoing investigation. Accordin g ly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition.

¶21

I have heard the learned co u nsel for the rival parties and h a ve gone thro u gh the available record of the c ase.

¶22

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-14602-2026 5

¶24

It would be apposite to r e fer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble S upreme Court titled as Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, relevant where o f reads as under:

¶25

“21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious off e nce like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima f a cie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motiva t ed or are frivolous. So far as the cas e at hand is concerned, it cannot be s aid that any exceptional circumsta n ces have been made out by the peti t ioner accused for grant of anticipa t ory bail and there is no frivolity in th e prosecution. 22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncemen t in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013)

¶26

7 Scale 15 , wherein this Court ex p ressed thus:

¶27

“28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the na t ure of accusation, the natu r e of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punish m ent which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable pos s ibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, re a sonable apprehension of the witne s ses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State a nd other similar considerati o ns. It has also to be kept in mind tha t for the purpose of granting b ail, the Legislature has used the w o rds "reasonable grounds fo r believing" instead of "the evide n ce" which means the Court d ealing with the grant of bail can o nly satisfy it as to whether th e re is a genuine case against the acc u sed and that the prosecutio n will be able to produce prima f a cie evidence in support of th e charge. It is not expected, at this st a ge, to have the evidence esta b lishing the guilt of the accused bey o nd reasonable doubt.”

¶28

23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the s ole consideration for grant of a n ticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the conside r ations, which the court should kee p in mind while considering the plea f or anticipatory bail. The salutary ru l e is to balance the cause of the accu s ed and the cause of public justice. O ver solicitous homage to the accus e d’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.

¶29

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-14602-2026

¶31

6

¶32

24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption f ree society, then the courts should n o t hesitate in denying such liberty. W h ere overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denia l of anticipatory bail, it has to be de n ied. It is altogether a different thin g to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the c o urt may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accuse d of indulging in corruption.

¶33

25. Avarice is a common fr a ilty of mankind and Robert Walp o le's famous pronouncement that all m en have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it sugge s ts, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Amo n g a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent ye a rs, Romain Rolland lamented that F rance fell because there was corrup t ion without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentiali t ies. Corruption, a word of wide con n otation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, a l l the world over, the limited meanin g of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the pro sp ects of monetary gains or other sel f ish considerations.

¶34

26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magni t ude of corruption to be true, then it w ould not be far removed from the tr u th, that it is the rampant corrupti o n indulged in with impunity by hi g hly placed persons that has led to e c onomic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor th a t effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniab ly it is corruption. If the society i n a developing country faces a men a ce greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and or d er, then that is from the corrupt elem e nts at the higher echelons of the Gov e rnment and of the political parties.”

¶35

As per the stand of the Sta t e, indubitably, serious allegati o ns have be e n levelled against the petiti o ner. The allegations against the petitione r pertain to offences under the P revention of Corruption Act, 1 9 88 which b y their very nature are serious and grave. Corruption by pu b lic servant i s not merely an offence again s t an individual but constitutes an offence a gainst the society at large, e roding public confidence in the administr a tion. Thus, the Courts are, therefore, required to exercis e a

¶36

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CRM-M-14602-2026 7

¶38

greater d e gree of caution while considering the grant of anticipatory bai l in such cases. From the perusal of the reco r d, it emerges that the allegation s in the prese n t FIR pertain to a systemati c and organized embezzlement of public f u nds earmarked for land acqui s ition compensation. The amo u nt allegedly misappropriated exceeds ₹ 2 .50 crores.. At the stage of consider a tion of plea for grant of anticip a tory bail, the Court is not requi r ed to condu c t a meticulous examination of the evidence but is required to assess w h ether the material collected d uring the course of investigat i on prima fa c ie discloses the involvement of the accused and whether custo d ial interroga t ion is necessary in the factual m ilieu of the case. The content i on raised on behalf of the petitioner that n o specific role is attributed to the petitione r in the FIR cannot, by itself, b e a ground for grant of anticipat o ry bail at t h is stage. In the considered o p inion of this Court, the mate r ial collected during the course of inve s tigation, including document a ry evidence, electronic evidence and o t her circumstance(s), are to be considered while examining a prayer for pre-arrest bail. In the present c a se, the prose c ution has placed reliance upon the report of the District Reve n ue Officer a nd the disclosure statemen t of co-accused Pawan Ku m ar specifically naming the petitioner as an a ctive participant in the fraudulent scheme. The stand of the investigating a gency before this Court is that the forged d o cuments and other incriminati n g material are yet to be recove r ed and the f i nancial trail regarding the alleg e d distribution of embezzled fu n ds is still un d er investigation. The nature of allegations reflects that the offe n ce has been committed through abuse of of f icial position and manipulatio n of official r e cords. The principle of parity a s invoked by the petitioner is a lso AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43I attest to the accuracy andmisplace d . The co-accused have been gr a nted the concession of regular b ail integrity of this document

¶39

CRM-M-14602-2026 8

¶40

whereas t h e petitioner seeks the concessi o n of anticipatory bail which sta n ds on a diff e rent footing. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and the nature a n d role of each accused is to be independently assessed. Accordin g ly, the petitioner cannot clai m parity with the co-accused as the principle of parity is not an absolute right and depends upon the conduct a nd circumst a nces of each accused.

¶41

Furthermore, the plea th a t the petitioner was a reti r ed governm e nt employee and had serve d for several years without a ny previous complaint cannot, by itself, outweigh the seriousness of the allegatio n s. The allegations show misuse of an official position held by the petitione r at the relevant time and such fa ctors are matters to be conside r ed during t h e course of trial. The argum e nt that the entire case rests on documen t ary evidence and, therefore, t he custodial interrogation of the petitione r is unnecessary is also without m erit. In the considered opinio n of this Cour t in cases involving forgery, m a nipulation of official records a nd conspiracy among multiple accused, t he custodial interrogation o f ten becomes necessary to ascertain the kno w ledge and intent of the accuse d as also to tr a ce the money trail. The magnit u de of the alleged loss to the pu b lic excheque r , the systematic nature of the offence, the position held by t he petitione r as public servants weigh hea v ily against the grant of pre-ar r est bail to th e petitioner. The stand of the in v estigating agency before this C o urt is that th e custodial interrogation of the p etitioner is necessary to trace the money tr i al, identify the role of other a ccused and to unearth the lar g er conspiracy. Furthermore, the plea o f false implication raised by the petitione r is a disputed question of f a ct and involves appreciation of AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43I attest to the accuracy andevidence, which cannot be adjudicated u pon at this stage. The same c an integrity of this document

¶42

CRM-M-14602-2026 9

¶43

only be a djudicated upon the conclusio n of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipat o ry bail at th i s stage is likely to hamper the on-going investigation. No ca u se nay plau s ible cause has been shown at this stage, from which it can be decipher e d that the petitioner has been f alsely implicated into the present FIR. Fu r thermore, the Court below ha s already declined the plea of the petitione r after considering the relevant factors, including the manner in which th e name of the petitioner surface d during investigation. It is befitt i ng to menti o n here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Cour t has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights a nd protectin g societal interests. The Court o u ght to reckon with the magnit u de and natur e of the offence; the role attribu t ed to the accused; the need for f air and free i nvestigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alle g ed iniquities on the society. At this stage, th e re is no material on record to h o ld that prim a facie case is not made out a g ainst the petitioner. The mate r ial which h a s come on record and the pr e liminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accus a tions. Thus, it is not appropriat e to grant an t icipatory bail to the petition e r, as it would necessarily ca u se impedim e nt in effective investigation. I n State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 , the Ho n 'ble Supreme Court held as und e r : (SCC p. 1 89, para 6)

¶44

“6. We find force in the submiss i on of CBI that custodial interrogatio n is qualitatively more elicitation-ori e nted than questioning a suspect wh o is well-ensconced with a favourabl e order under Section 438 of the Cod e . In a case like this, effective inte r rogation of a suspected person i s of tremendous advantage in disinte r ring many useful informations and a lso materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is w ell

¶45

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CRM-M-14602-2026

¶47

10

¶48

protected and insulated by a pr e -arrest bail order during the time h e is interrogated. Very often interrog a tion in such a condition would reduc e to a mere ritual. The argument th a t the custodial interrogation is fra u ght with the danger of the person b eing subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, s u ch an argument can be advanced b y all accused in all criminal cases. T h e Court has to presume that respons i ble police officers would conduct t h emselves in task of disintering offe n ces would not conduct themselves as o ffenders.”

¶49

In the present case, the inv e stigation is still at a crucial st a ge and the g rant of anticipatory bail at this juncture will impede the fair a nd effective investigation. Considering t h e nature and seriousness of the allegatio n s, the specific role assigned, th e stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation for v e rification of facts, this Court i s of the consi d ered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concessio n of anticipat o ry bail in the factual milieu of t h e case in hand.

¶50

In view of the prevenient rat i ocination, it is ordained thus: (i) The instant petition is devoi d of merits and is hereby dismis s ed. (ii) Nothing said hereinabove s h all be deemed to be an express i on of opinio n upon merits of the case/investi g ation.

¶51

(iii) Pending application(s), if an y , shall also stand disposed off.

¶52

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶53

July 06, 2 026 Ajay

¶54

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶55

AJAY KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rampal Alias Rampal Mor v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal Alias Rampal Mor v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandip Aggarwal Vs State of Haryana and Another

Md.Irfan Ansari Alias Mohd. Irfan Ansari Vs State of Haryana

Samarjeet Singh Vs State of Haryana

Jagtar @ Kari Alias Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dharambeer Singh @ Paramveer Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sanjay Nagyan Vs Tejpal Saini