Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 337 (HP)

Vikrant Kumar Raj v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-04-23

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. INSPECTOR Shri Tanzin, Incharge SIU, Kullu, is present alongwith the record. Status report perused and taken on record. 2. THE present application has been filed by the petitioner for grant of bail, in connection with FIR No.32/12, dated 19.5.2012, under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the IT Act, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. The petitioner is in jail. Prosecution has seriously opposed the bail application, on the ground that two accomplices of the petitioner are missing. In fact, proceedings under the provisions of Sections 82 & 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have been initiated against them. 3. IT is the case of the prosecution that a gang of persons is cheating the gullible residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh by inducing them to part with their money on the pretext of winning a lottery. Complainant in the present case deposited certain amounts, acting upon the representations so made by such persons. Petitioner is alleged to be one of the members of the gang. 4. TO show complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime, it has come on record that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was in fact deposited into the bank account of the petitioner, which was withdrawn through ATM Card belonging to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he handed over the Card, in trust, to Shri Mukul Mishra @ Guddu, son of Shri Daya Mishra, resident of Narenia, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj, Bihar. This alibi, to my mind, is an afterthought. Petitioner and the co-accused persons have been telephonically calling up the residents of the State informing them that they have won a lottery of Rs.25,00,000/- as also a luxury car. On their asking, complainant as also other residents of the State kept on depositing certain amounts into the bank accounts. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence is minor; petitioner has been interrogated; and no recovery is to be effected from him. Also, he is a young man of 22 years and has a minor daughter to look after and as such, he be enlarged on bail. 6. THE contentions need to be rejected. As already observed, gullible people of the State have been allegedly duped by the gang of which petitioner is supposed to be one of the members. Also, he is a young man of 22 years and has a minor daughter to look after and as such, he be enlarged on bail. 6. THE contentions need to be rejected. As already observed, gullible people of the State have been allegedly duped by the gang of which petitioner is supposed to be one of the members. Status report also reveals that the petitioner has been making calls. Further, investigation in the instant case is not complete. In my considered view, the offence is serious and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be minor/trivial. Bail application of one of the co-accused of the petitioner has already been dismissed. 7. ANY observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petition, without any merit, is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.