Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 883 (HP)

Surinder Rana v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-10-15

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGEMENT DEV DARSHAN SUD, J. 1. THE petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail in FIR No.208 of 2013, dated 9.7.2013, registered with Police Station, Sadar, Una, under Sections 307, 382, 452, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. PRIOR to the present application, the petitioner had filed an application for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Una, who by his order dated 17.9.2013 dismissed the petition only on the ground that the case is pending investigation. The Court also holds that there was no enmity with the wife and daughter of Rajinder Saini who is supposed to have cheated the petitioner. I find from the order that it is very perfunctory and does not in any manner consider the facts of the case. True that at the stage of granting bail, facts are not to be gone into in detail nor are the findings rendered or observations made in bail order conclusive and binding on the trial Court, but nonetheless what the petitioner avers in this application are the facts required to be taken notice of. 3. THE case of the petitioner is that he was duped by Rajinder Saini, husband of the complainant, who had supplied fake documents, asked him to part with substantial amount of money and also retained his passport on the promise that he would be granted employment with AL Saraya Company who had engaged him as liaison officer/contractor. It is also the case of the petitioner that First Information Report has been registered against three persons, who are the employees of this Rajinder Saini, under Section 420/34 IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act at Police Station, Paharganj, New Delhi being FIR No.201/2012 dated 4.10.2012. The petitioner appends Annexure A 3 with the petition to substantiate his claim that his passport was taken away by these people. 4. IF what the petitioner states is the correct position, then his allegation that the present FIR has been lodged by the wife of Shri Rajinder Saini as a counterblast needs to be considered in seriousness as the case of the petitioner is that the cases against him have been fabricated for the reason that the husband of the complainant stands implicated in serious charges for which FIR is pending at Police Station, Paharganj, New Delhi. In these circumstances, I quash and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Una. This Court has been informed that challan has been put up in the Court of learned JMIC, Court No.2, Amb on 7.10.2013. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioner will approach that Court which shall consider the application for grant of bail of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law totally uninfluenced with the orders passed by learned Sessions Judge, which order has been set aside. 5. THE petitioner will be at liberty to rely upon such other or further material on which he places reliance. Learned trial Court shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. Petition disposed of.