Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1399 (PNJ)

Satish Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2006-03-30

VIRENDER SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. He is booked in a case bearing FIR No.208 dated 14.6.2005, registered at Police Station Pehowa under sections 420, 120-B, 409 IPC. At the very outset, it may be mentioned here that the instant petition was ordered to be heard along with Crl. Misc. No.60063-M of 2005 filed by his brother Pawan Kumar which has already been disposed The instant petition was segregated from the said petition. 2. The first impugned order dated 28.7.2005 reflects that the present petitioner had failed to join the investigation despite the directions of the court. This appears to be the reason that the relief of anticipatory bail was declined to him. However, his co-accused pawan Kumar, who is his real brother was granted the conditional anticipatory bail with a direction to deposit Rs 15 lacs by 31.10.2005. The petitioner, thereafter moved his second application for the same relief observing that during the pendency of the first application, he could not comply with the directions of the court as he had fallen ill. The other ground taken was that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The said application was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 7.9.2005 observing that there was no reasonable substance in the explanation given by the petitioner. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Records also perused. Mr. Bajwa while drawing my attention to the order dated 26.9.2005 states that may be that the plea of the petitioner tendering his explanation for non-joining the investigation was not acceptable to the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the fact remains that after issuance of notice of motion in the instant petition, the petitioner in compliance with the interim directions has already joined the investigation on a fixed date. Strengthening his arguments, the learned counsel further states that out of Rs 15 lacs, Rs 5 lacs were already deposited by pawan kumar his co-accused by 31.10.2005 and with regard to the remaining amount of Rs 10 lacs, the Ware Housing Corporation has agreed to accept the money in three equal monthly instalments, starting from april, 2006 and ending June, 2006. On this ground alone, Pawan kumar has already been released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Crl. Misc. No.60063-M of 2005. On this ground alone, Pawan kumar has already been released on anticipatory bail in aforesaid Crl. Misc. No.60063-M of 2005. The learned counsel then states that although the petitioner is a partner in the books but he had never been looking after the affairs or running the rice mill. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel states that the petitioner is not required for any further investigation and prays for the relief sought herein especially when ware housing Corporation, can possibly have no objection as the entire amount of Rs 20 lacs has been amicably settled. Opposing the prayer, the learned State counsel submits that may be the petitioner has joined the investigation and is no longer required for the purposes of further interrogation but he has flouted the directions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of relief sought herein which is to be granted in extra ordinary circumstances. 5. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application in the same manner. I would have certainly taken a very serious note of disregard shown by the petitioner to the interim directions granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and have declined the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on that count alone, as no body is above the law, but the facts of the instant case tilt in favour of the petitioner and entitle him to the concession of anticipatory bail. Admittedly, the dispute is with regard to Rs 20 lacs. Rs 10 lacs had already been paid to the Ware Housing Corporation. For the remaining amount (Rs 10 lacs), the Corporation has agreed to accept the same in three equated monthly instalments and this factor weighed in my mind while granting the same relief to the brother of petitioner in a separate petition (Crl. Misc. No.60063-M of 2005 decided on 24.3.2006 ). Another fact which goes in favour of the petitioner is that pursuant to the interim directions given by this Court vide order dated september 26, 2005, he has joined the investigation. This fact is not controverted by the learned State counsel who has otherwise very fairly stated that the petitioner is not required for further interrogation much less custodial. This shows that this Court had condoned his earlier act and conduct. 6. This fact is not controverted by the learned State counsel who has otherwise very fairly stated that the petitioner is not required for further interrogation much less custodial. This shows that this Court had condoned his earlier act and conduct. 6. The petitioner and his brother Pawan Kumar are the partners of the same rice mill (M/s Sethi Rice Mills, Pehowa ). Whether the petitioner is a sleeping partner or active one is not to be dealt with by this Court while deciding the instant application. The fact remains that the aforesaid Mill owed Rs 20 lacs which dispute is now stand settled with the Corporation. All the aforesaid facts when taken cumulatively, especially the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and is not required further by the prosecution agency, entitle him to the relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Resultantly, the instant application is allowed. Interim order dated 26.9.2005 is hereby made absolute. This order is subject to the petitioner strictly adhering to the following conditions:- (i) He shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) He shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) He shall also abide by any other condition which may be imposed upon him under Sec.437 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure at the appropriate stage when the investigation culminates into filing of challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disposed of.