2025:HHC:29399 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 1976 of 2025 Reserved on : 25.08.2025 Decided on : 30.08.2025 Kulwant Singh Malik …Applicant Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant      :  Mr. Ajay   Kochhar,   Senior   Advocate, with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. For the respondent   : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant­Kulwant   Singh   Malik,   has   filed   the present   application  under   Section   483   of   the   Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the   trial,   arising   out   of   case   RC   No.   RC0962025A0016, 2 2025:HHC:29399 dated   19.06.2025,   under   Section   7   of   Prevention   of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018), registered with CBI ACB Shimla. 2. According to the applicant, he has been arrested, in the above noted case, for allegedly having demanded Rs. 40,000/­,   at   the   instance   of   one   Sh. Arvind   Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Jupiter builder, as well as, on the basis of alleged verification report. 3. According to the applicant, he was arrested on 19.06.2025   and   produced   before   the   Court   of   learned Special Judge, Shimla on 20.06.2025, from where he was remanded   to   police   custody   till   23.06.2025. Since 23.06.2025, he is in judicial custody and lodged in District Jail Kaithu, Shimla. 4. The applicant has sought the relief of bail on the ground that after his arrest, his residential house at Delhi, as well as, the office at Jhakri were searched and nothing incriminating could be found. The petitioner is stated to be victim   of   deep   rooted   conspiracy   and   has   falsely   been implicated in this case. 3 2025:HHC:29399 5. According to the applicant, the complainant was having a grudge against him, and as such, he has made a false complaint. 6. The   applicant   has   earlier   tried   his   luck   by moving   similar   application   before   learned   Special   Judge (CBI), Shimla, however, his application has been dismissed, on 05.08.2025. 7. Apart   from   this,   Sh. Ajay   Kochhar,   learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application. 9. When,   put   to   notice,   CBI   has   filed   the   reply, disclosing therein, that alleged FIR has been registered on 19.06.2025,   on   the   basis   of   written   complaint,   dated 18.06.2025,   of   Sh. Arvind   Kumar,   Prop. M/s   Jupiter Builders. In his complaint, complainant Arvind Kumar has 4 2025:HHC:29399 mentioned   that   his   firm   is   registered   with   Military Engineering   Service,   Western   Command   as   contractor. Construction work of 02 guard rooms near Gate No. 02 and Gate No. 03 at Averi Military Station, District Kullu, were awarded to his firm through e­tendering by GE, 863 EWS Jhakri, District Shimla, H.P.  Payment of 06 running bills in respect of these works has been made to the complainant. 9.1 It has further been alleged in the complaint that after completion of these works in December, 2024, final bills approximately Rs. 05 lakh each, were submitted by the complainant   and   the   same   were   pending   with   Kulwant Singh AGE (applicant) for technical clearance. 9.2 On   16.06.2025,   Kulwant     Singh   (applicant) demanded   Rs. 40,000/­   lump   sum,   for   having   already technically cleared 06 bills and for further submission of the pending final bills, after technical clearance. 9.3 The  verification of the  said  complaint  was got done   through   Sh. Kuldeep   Chand,   Inspector,   CBI   ACB Shimla. During verification, Kulwant Singh @ Malik Sahab (applicant) agreed to accept the demanded undue advantage 5 2025:HHC:29399 of Rs. 40,000/­ for technical clearance of the final bills and assured   the   complainant   to   get   pending   bills   cleared/ released, by tomorrow evening i.e. 19.06.2025. 9.4 The   above   complaint   and   verification   report dated   18.06.2025,   disclosed   commission   of   offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently,   a   case   No.   RC0962025A0016,   dated 19.06.2025 was registered in CBI, ACB, Shimla. 9.5 After   registration   of   FIR,   a   trap   team   was constituted under Sh. Sushil Kumar, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB Shimla, to catch Kulwant Singh (applicant) red handed while demanding and accepting the demanded birbe money. Pre   Trap   Proceedings   were   conducted   and thereafter,   a   trap   was   laid   on   19.06.2025,   and   accused Kulwant Singh (applicant) was  caught  red handed, while demanding and accepting bribe/illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000/­ from the complainant, near office campus of the applicant, in the presence of independent witnesses. 9.6 During   post   trap   proceedings,   left   hand   wash and   right   hand   wash,   of   the   accused   Kulwant   Singh 6 2025:HHC:29399 (applicant) were taken and marked as ‘LHW’ & ‘RHW’. The proceedings were videographed through official Sony Handy Cam. Wash of swab taken from the left pocket of the trek pants worn by Kulwant Singh (applicant), in which the bribe amount   was   kept   by   accused­applicant   were   taken   and marked as ‘TPW’. 9.7 A   paper   containing   details   of   various   persons regarding certain payments received and balances, was also recovered from the applicant, which he tried to destroy, but secured by one of the independent witnesses. Tainted GC notes   amounting   to   Rs. 40,000/­   recovered   from   the applicant were placed in an envelope and duly sealed. This sealed   envelope   was   marked   as   ‘BM’. Screenshot   of whatsapp   profile   of   the   complainant   Arvind   Kumar   alias Babli saved in the mobile phone of the accused­applicant along   with   whatsapp   chat   displaying   the   call   transacted between the complainant and the accused­applicant were taken. 9.8 It is the further case that during investigation, the   residence   of   the   applicant   was   also   searched. 7 2025:HHC:29399 Reasserting   the   fact   that   the   applicant   was   caught   red handed for accepting Rs. 40,000/­ for clearance of bills of the complainant, has further been averred that in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence and try to influence the witnesses and may evade the process of law. 9.9 It is the specific stand of the CBI in para No. 18 of the reply that the charge­sheet has been filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Shimla. 9.10 On the basis of the stand, so taken, in the reply. Sh. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, appearing for the CBI, has prayed that the application be dismissed. 10. From the stand taken by the CBI, it is clear that investigation, in the present  case, is complete. Meaning thereby, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. 11. The   CBI   has   filed   the   charge­sheet,   but   the chances  of commencement and conclusion of trial against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. As such, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the applicant in 8 2025:HHC:29399 judicial custody, that too for the indefinite period. 12. Reply filed by the CBI is totally silent as to how the applicant will influence the witnesses. Moreover, for the apprehensions which have been expressed by the CBI in the reply, reasonable conditions can be imposed, in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail. The applicant was   arrested   on   19.06.2025   and   charge   sheet   has   been filed. 13. The presumption of innocence is still available to the   applicant,   as   the   bail   application   cannot   be   rejected merely   as   a   matter   of   punishment,   since,   pre­trial punishment is prohibited under the law. 14. The accused is presumed to be innocent, unless proven guilty. Being guided by the said principle, this Court is   of   the   view   that   while   deciding   the   bail   application, detailed discussion about the merits of the case should be avoided, as the same will cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, to the accused. 15. Moreover, bail application cannot be rejected for the   purpose   of   punishing   the   applicant   prior   to   the 9 2025:HHC:29399 conclusion   of   the   trial. The   stand   of   the   prosecuting agency/CBI would be proved during the trial. 16. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 17. Consequently,   the   applicant   is   ordered   to   be released, on bail, during the pendency of trial, arising out of RC   No.   RC0962025A0016,   dated   19.06.2025,   registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with CBI, ACB, Shimla, H.P. on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/­, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 18. This   order,   however,   shall   be   subject   to   the following conditions:­ a)  The   applicant   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   the   appropriate application; b)   The   applicant   shall   not   tamper   with   the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with 10 2025:HHC:29399 the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing   such   facts   to   the   Court   or   the   Police Officer; and d)   The   applicant   shall   not   leave   the   territory   of India without the prior permission of the Court. 19. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, 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 application. 20. It   is   made   clear   that   respondent­State   is   at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found violated by the applicant. 21. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, through e­mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e­ prison software. 22. In case, the applicant is not released within a period  of  seven  days  from   the  date   of  grant  of  bail,  the Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Kaithu, District Shimla, 11 2025:HHC:29399 Himachal   Pradesh,  is   directed   to   inform   this   fact   to   the Secretary,   DLSA,   Shimla. The   Superintendent   of   Jail, District Jail,  Kaithu, District Shimla Himachal Pradesh, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds,   as   per   the   order   passed   by   this   Court,   within   a period   of   one   month   from   today,   then,   the   said   fact   be submitted to this Court. (Virender Singh) Judge August 30, 2025 (Pramod Kumar) RAJNI Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.08.30 11:00:48 +0530