Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 761 (HP)

Sunehar Singh v. State Of H. P.

2015-06-24

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant application has been filed by the bail applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the grant of anticipatory bail to him as he apprehends his arrest for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in F.I.R. No. 84 of 2015 of 6.4.2015 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kullu. 2. The Investigating Officer ASI Dharam Chand is present in Court and has submitted before this Court that the investigation into the offences allegedly committed by the bail applicant stands closed. He has also disclosed that the bail applicant has rendered full and effective cooperation in the investigation carried out by him into the offences allegedly committed by him. However, the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,33,692.40 purportedly embezzled by the bail applicant stands unrecovered by the Investigating Officer, at the instance of the bail applicant. Nonetheless, even if the embezzled amount in the sum aforesaid remains unrecovered by the investigating officer at the instance of the bail applicant, yet in the face of an affidavit having come to be filed by the bail applicant and its conveying that in the event of the bail applicant suffering conviction for his having committed offences recorded in the F.I.R., it is open for the State of Himachal Pradesh to recover the purportedly embezzled amount from the property of the bail applicant. As a corollary, the aforesaid disclosure in the affidavit of the bail applicant renders it to constitute an adequate and sufficient assurance to this Court, that not only the custodial interrogation of the bail applicant for effectuating at his instance the recovery of the purported embezzled amount is not imperative but also the embezzled amount at his instance on recording findings of conviction against him by the trial Court would come to be recovered for the State. 3. As such, the lack of recovery of the aforesaid purported embezzled amount at the instance of the bail applicant, to the considered mind of this Court ought not to act as an obstacle in affording the indulgence of bail to the bail applicant. Moreso, when at this stage no material has been placed on record by the prosecution disclosing that in case the facility of bail is accorded to the bail applicant, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence. Moreso, when at this stage no material has been placed on record by the prosecution disclosing that in case the facility of bail is accorded to the bail applicant, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence. Accordingly, order of 27.4.2015 is made absolute subject to fulfilling of the following conditions: (i) That the bail applicant shall join the investigation, as and when required by the investigating agency; (ii) That he shall not directly or indirectly advance any threat, inducement or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (iii) That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (iv) That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned; (v) That in case of violation of any of these conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody; and (vi) That he shall apply for bail afresh when the challan is filed before the trial Court. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.