P&H High Court Declines Pre-Arrest Bail To Court Clerk Accused Of Tampering Traffic Challans, Says Custodial Interrogation Needed

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a court employee accused of colluding with police personnel and court staff to tamper with traffic challans in exchange for illegal gratification, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary for a fair and effective investigation.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "As per the case set up by prosecution, the petitioner had made payment in the bank account of the co-accused for getting disposed of the traffic challans by way of editing the same. As per submissions made by learned State counsel, the investigation is still at a preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary to unravel the truth."

The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered under Sections 256, 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340, 61, 238, 241 of BNS and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption act,

Allegations Of Manipulation In Court Records

As per the prosecution case, the FIR stemmed from a confidential communication issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad, following which a discreet enquiry was conducted into irregularities in the Postal Traffic Challan Branch of the Sessions Division. The enquiry revealed that a police official deployed for registration of postal traffic challans had unauthorized access to the CIS systems of several Magistrate Courts and failed to explain the same satisfactorily.

The enquiry further revealed that several traffic challans—particularly those involving heavy motor vehicles—were manipulated by altering serious offences into minor ones. Comparison with original challans available on official portals showed discrepancies, indicating tampering and forgery.

During investigation, it surfaced that vehicle owners had allegedly paid illegal gratification for disposal of challans. One such vehicle owner stated that ₹11,000 was paid to a Home Guard, who in turn transferred money through online transactions to other co-accused. Investigation revealed that at least 25 challans were disposed of in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, and were registered by the Ahlmad of the court.

The present petitioner, a clerk/munshi working in the Court Complex, Faridabad, was alleged to have acted in collusion with co-accused officials and to have transferred money to the account of a co-accused, leading to his nomination in the FIR.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and had no role in editing or manipulating traffic challans. It was contended that his duties were clerical in nature and that custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive tool, especially when he was willing to join the investigation.

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the Court noted that serious allegations had been levelled against the petitioner. The Court observed that prima facie material indicated that the petitioner had made payments to co-accused for facilitating the disposal of traffic challans by manipulating offences.

Relying on Supreme Court judgements including Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State v. Anil Sharma, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and must be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving economic offences and corruption.

The Court emphasised that while considering anticipatory bail, a balance must be struck between individual liberty and societal interest, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

"It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society," the judge added.

Considering gravity of offence and observing that, "the necessity of custodial interrogation would arise for a fair and thorough investigation", the plea was dismissed.

Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Title: Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana

Click here to read order