Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 432 (HP)

ASLAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-05-16

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASI Man Chand, I.O. Police Station Sadar, Una, is present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record. 2. F.I.R. No. 102/13 was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Una, Distt. Una, H.P. on 29.4.2013, under the provisions of Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 7.5.2013 this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. According to the complainant, the accused entered into four different agreements in relation to sale of land belonging to him. The complainant in all paid a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (approximately) as sale consideration. However, with dishonest intent, petitioner has now sold land in favour of his nephew for a higher consideration. 3. IT be only noticed that prior to the registration of the instant F.I.R., petitioner had in fact executed one sale deed, for part of the land, in favour of the complainant. Even in relation to the said transaction and prior to the registration of the F.I.R., petitioner had instituted proceedings for cancellation of the said sale deed before a Civil Court. 4. AS such, in my considered view the dispute prima facie appears to be more of civil in nature. Be that as it may, the guilt of the accused has to be ascertained during trial as and when challan is presented in the Court. The question which needs to be examined is as to whether the petitioner, in the given facts and circumstances has made out a case for confirmation of interim order dated 7.5.2013 or not. 5. PETITIONER is an old man of 73 years. He is an agriculturist. He is unwell. He is permanent resident of district Una where according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has immoveable property. Petitioner is not likely to flee away from the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner has joined investigation on two occasions. Mr. R. S. Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that petitioner is not fully cooperating during investigation which fact is disputed by Sh. N. S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is not likely to flee away from the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner has joined investigation on two occasions. Mr. R. S. Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that petitioner is not fully cooperating during investigation which fact is disputed by Sh. N. S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that petitioner has joined investigation at least on two occasions. Police only requires his specimen hand writing and signatures. 6. HAVING perused the record as also heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that prima facie petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. This Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during investigation. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. 7. HAVING taken into consideration the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show that there is reason to believe that the threat of arrest is imminent. 8. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, the interim order dated 7.5.2013 is made absolute. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. Petitioner undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigating agency. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned counsel, for the petitioner, submits that petitioner shall make himself available in the office of the S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Una, on 18.5.2013, at 10.00 a.m. 9. 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 stands disposed of. Copy dasti.