Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 991 (HP)

AMARJEET SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-12-02

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE- 1. Sub Inspector Shri Bhup Singh, Police Station Amb, District Una, is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record. The petition only merits rejection. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.67 of 2013, dated 24.5.2013, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, under the provisions of Sections 279, 337, 304-A, 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, petitioner Amarjeet Singh filed the instant application under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 26.11.2013, an interim order was passed in his favour. It is not in dispute that petitioner has joined investigation, pursuant to directions issued by this Court on 26.11.2013. However, according to the respondent, he is not fully cooperating. 3. AS per version of police, Jaskaran Singh, owner of vehicle bearing No.PB-08V-4000 (Indica) was travelling alongwith Roop Singh. The vehicle driven by Jaskaran Singh met with an accident on 24.5.2013 within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Amb, Himachal Pradesh. Case was registered. 4. BOTH Jaskaran Singh and Roop Singh fled away from the spot. Vehicle was searched and forged/counterfeit/ fake currency notes recovered. Investigation also revealed that Jaskaran Singh had used such currency for purchasing petrol. Salesman of the petrol pump, namely Sunder Lal was handed over such notes. He was the salesman at the time when petrol was filled in the vehicle. Despite efforts made by the police, Jaskaran Singh and Roop Singh could not be traced. On 24.8.2013, Jaskaran Singh was arrested. Roop Singh was arrested thereafter. His bail application stands rejected. Undisputedly, Roop Singh stands enlarged on bail. It is further the case of police that on 24.8.2013, Jaskaran Singh made a statement that currency notes (fake/counterfeit/forged) were actually handed over to him by present petitioner Amarjeet Singh. In fact, according to the police, petitioner had sold these currency notes to Jaskaran Singh. Thereafter, police on four different occasions went to his house, but he was nowhere to be traced and as such could not be associated during investigation. According to the police, present petitioner is deliberately avoiding the process of law. His custodial interrogation to unearth the bigger crime is required. 5. MR. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited my attention to the resolution dated 5.5.2013, passed by the Panchayat where Amarjeet Singh resides. It is in the neighbouring State of Punjab. According to the police, present petitioner is deliberately avoiding the process of law. His custodial interrogation to unearth the bigger crime is required. 5. MR. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited my attention to the resolution dated 5.5.2013, passed by the Panchayat where Amarjeet Singh resides. It is in the neighbouring State of Punjab. The resolution, in vernacular, has been read over in Court. Copy of the same is also taken on record. The resolution is to the effect that before the Panchayat, Jaskaran Singh admits to have misbehaved with the wife of present petitioner. For this conduct, an unconditional apology is tendered. Thus, according to the learned counsel, in view of the prior animosity and hostility, Jaskaran Singh has falsely implicated the present petitioner. 6. RESOLUTION dated 5.5.2013 itself discloses the fact that Jaskaran Singh is a close relative of the present petitioner. They are first cousins. Significantly, immediately after the accident, Jaskaran Singh fled away from the spot, leaving the vehicle behind. This was on 24.5.2013 and since then he was untraceable. He could be arrested only on 22.8.2013 and soon thereafter his statement was recorded on 24.8.2013. The veracity and authenticity of the resolution and events which took place in Punjab need to be verified during investigation. Perhaps there may have been prior animosity between Jaskaran Singh and the present petitioner, but then one cannot lose sight of the fact that statement was recorded immediately after his arrest. Whether petitioner stands falsely implicated or not, is a question which needs to be examined by the police, but then his conduct is not that of a prudent man. One also cannot lose sight of the fact that present petitioner was untraceable. On four different occasions police went to his house, and he was not available. His whereabouts were not disclosed. He did not come forward for subjecting himself for further investigation/inquiry. 7. THERE is yet another factor, which has weighed with the Court. Implication of the present petitioner is not based solely on the statement made by Jaskaran Singh. Challan was presented by the police in the Court, naming Jaskaran Singh and Roop Singh as the accused and name of the present petitioner was kept in Column No.2. He was always a suspect. Now, he has surfaced and police has to inquire and investigate the matter qua his complicity in the crime. 8. Challan was presented by the police in the Court, naming Jaskaran Singh and Roop Singh as the accused and name of the present petitioner was kept in Column No.2. He was always a suspect. Now, he has surfaced and police has to inquire and investigate the matter qua his complicity in the crime. 8. THAT apart, also there is statement of one Navjot Singh, a friend of Jaskaran Singh, who has independently disclosed to the police about the transaction, which took place between Jaskaran Singh and Amarjeet Singh. Even according to this person, the present petitioner had sold fake/forged/ counterfeit currency notes. Jaskaran Singh paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- and the present petitioner handed over fake/counterfeit/forged currency notes valuing Rs.10,000/-. It is not the case of police that petitioner is required in connection with offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. His requirement is in relation to other serious and heinous offences of selling forged/fake/counterfeit currency notes. Court is of the view that the nature of crime is heinous. Police wants his custodial interrogation as illicit trade of fake currency needs to be unearthed. Conduct of the petitioner disentitles him for continuation of interim order passed in his favour. The deep rooted conspiracy, according to the police, needs to be unearthed, which, in my considered view, can be done only after through investigation by the police. 9. AS such for all the aforesaid reasons, present petitioner, devoid of merit, is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of.