Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 981 (HP)

PARMOD SINGH CHAUHAN v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-11-06

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral).-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing petitioner on bail in FIR No. 27 registered on 19.04.2009 at Police Station Brow, District Kullu under Sections 379, 202, 212, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused record. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that FIR No. 27 of 2009 has been registered against petitioner and two others. The petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2009 and since then he is in jail. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was rejected on 29.04.2009. His two previous bail applications were rejected on 26.05.2009 and 13.08.2009. The petitioner is innocent he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is 23 years of age and intends to pursue coaching somewhere at Chandigarh. The police has completed the investigation and the challan has been presented in the court in which next date of hearing is fixed on 04.01.2010. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in case he is released on bail. On these grounds the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the basis of status report. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.4.2009 the petitioner was trying to sell Maruti car No. HP 03A-6091 at Nither. There was one more person namely Deepak Chandel who fled away from the spot. They had brought the vehicle in the area in order to sell the vehicle. Later on it was found that petitioner and Deepak by committing theft brought the vehicle at Nither. On 19.04.2009 petitioner was arrested and on 22.4.2009 accused Ashok Kumar was arrested. It was found during investigation that petitioner and Deepak Chandel tried to sell Maruti Car HP 03A-6691 at Nither. The vehicle HP 03A-6691 alongwith RC was recovered from accused. The RC was tampered from HP 09A-0691 to HP 03A-6691. In fact, the RC belongs to vehicle No. HP 09A-0691 belonging to Ajit Singh which was stolen from Matyana and on that basis forged number plate HP 03A-6691 was affixed on the vehicle. It has been alleged that petitioner is very clever person and in case he is released on bail he could commit other thefts and terrorize the prosecution witnesses. 4. It has been alleged that petitioner is very clever person and in case he is released on bail he could commit other thefts and terrorize the prosecution witnesses. 4. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that coaccused Deepak Chandel had filed CrMP(M) No. 388 of 2009 which was dismissed by High Court on 28.05.2009, thereafter Deepak Chandel had filed another CrMP(M) No. 901 of 2009 which was also dismissed on 21.10.2009 by the High Court. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Chandraswami and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2575. In that case the accused were charged under Section 120B read with Section 420 I.P.C. The Supreme Court has held that case does not fall under Cls. (i) and (ii) of Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. and granted bail. 6. In the present case the allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner and his co-accused had committed theft of vehicle No. HP 09A0691 from Matyana alongwith RC which was tampered. On the basis of tampered RC the registration plate was also changed of car No. HP09A0691 to HP 03A-6691. The car HP 03A-6691 was being sold at Nither and at that time the offence committed by the petitioner surfaced. The petitioner could not sell the car. It is not a case of joy ride by a student of some car. The allegations against the petitioner are serious to the effect that not only he committed theft of the car but thereafter tampered the RC and changed the number plate of the stolen car. The petitioner ultimately wanted to sell the car. The allegations against the petitioner indicate the working of the mind of the petitioner. 7. The bail application of the co-accused Deepak Chandel has been dismissed by the High Court on 28.5.2009 and another bail application of Deepak Chandel was again dismissed by the High Court on 21.10.2009. In Chandraswami’s case supra the Supreme Court has held that a person who is suspected of having committed an offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I.P.C. would be entitled to bail; of course the paramount consideration would always be to ensure that the enlargement of such persons on bail will not jeopardize the prosecution case. In Chandraswami’s case supra the Supreme Court has held that a person who is suspected of having committed an offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I.P.C. would be entitled to bail; of course the paramount consideration would always be to ensure that the enlargement of such persons on bail will not jeopardize the prosecution case. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are for having committed offence punishable under Sections 379 202, 212, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 8. The prosecution has shown apprehension that petitioner is a clever person and in case he is released on bail he is likely to commit same type of offence and may tamper the prosecution evidence. The last bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 13.8.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Division, wherein the Sessions Judge has observed that there is no change of circumstance which warrants consideration of the release of the petitioner on bail. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail, accordingly the petition is dismissed.