Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 894 (HP)

Arun Patial v. State of H. P.

2015-07-15

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order P.S. Rana, J. Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 105 of 2015 dated 24.6.2015 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at P.S. Amb District Una (H.P.) 2. It is pleaded that petitioner did not misrepresent any fact to the complainant and it is further pleaded that complainant had full knowledge of the defect at the time when he purchased the machine. It is pleaded that petitioner will not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner and will not hamper the prosecution case and will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by Court. It is pleaded that complaint of complainant was promptly attended and further pleaded that petitioner is only dealer of M/s ABEL Excavators & Earthmovers Pvt. Limited and petitioner had no role in manufacturing the defect. Prayer for anticipatory bail application is sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 105 of 2015 dated 24.6.2015 registered against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC in P.S. Amb District Una (H.P.). There is recital in police report that company M/s ABEL Excavators and Earthmovers Private Limited of which Shri Arun Patial is Manager has no authority to sell the machine. There is recital in police report that despite no authority to sell the machine petitioner had sold four machines of huge consideration amount. There is further recital in police report that petitioner Arun Kumar had also committed cheating with Raman Kumar and Bimla Devi and got financed the money in the name of M/s S.S. Traders from the bank and did not supply the tractor and water tanks to Raman Kumar and Bimla Kumari and their amount misappropriated for the personal economic benefit. There is further recital in police report that petitioner Arun Patial has took the loan from PNB Amb to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs (Rupees thirty lacs only) and did not liquidate the loan amount and separate complaint against the petitioner was filed which is under investigation. There is further recital in police report that another FIR No. 96 of 2015 dated 16.6.2015 under Section 420 and 120-B IPC is also pending against the petitioner which was filed by Manjit Singh Parmar. 30 lacs (Rupees thirty lacs only) and did not liquidate the loan amount and separate complaint against the petitioner was filed which is under investigation. There is further recital in police report that another FIR No. 96 of 2015 dated 16.6.2015 under Section 420 and 120-B IPC is also pending against the petitioner which was filed by Manjit Singh Parmar. There is further recital in police report that petitioner had committed cheating with many persons and had collected huge amount in an illegal manner. There is also recital in police report that petitioner has joined the investigation of case but is not cooperating with investigating agency and is not submitting any record of bills. There is recital in police report that specimen hand writing of petitioner is required in present case. Prayer for dismissal of anticipatory bail application is sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is only dealer of M/s ABEL Excavators and Earthmovers Private Limited and he has no role in manufacturing the defect and any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled State vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In the present case allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature. Allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner was not legally competent to sell the machine but despite non-competency petitioner has sold the machine and committed cheating of huge amount with various persons. Specimen hand writing and signatures of petitioner are essential in present case for proper investigation. Court is of the opinion that records relating to bills and receipt are also essential in present case for proper investigation. There is recital in police report that petitioner is not cooperating with investigating agency. In view of above stated facts Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage. Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential in present case for proper investigation. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage then interest of State and general public will be adversely affected and investigation of case will also be adversely affected. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that if bail is granted to petitioner then petitioner will induce, threat and influence the prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of the Court that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner then petitioner will induce and threat the prosecution witnesses. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant anticipatory bail in favour of petitioner keeping in view the involvement of huge monetary amount. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order) 9. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order) 9. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Bail petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure stands disposed of.