Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1079 (HP)

Manju Bala v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-09-18

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing her on bail, in case FIR No. 42 of 2017, dated 07.03.2017, registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of The Lotteries Act (Regulation) and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of The Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. As per the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is resident of the place and not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, thus she may be released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner has been roped in by one Shri Manoj Kumar with ulterior motive and the police are not conducting fair investigation. 3. Police reports stand filed. As per the prosecution story, on 06.03.2017 police received a complaint wherein it was alleged that a company with name and style Electronics B.I.V. Three D. Pvt. Ltd. is doing the business of lotteries. The petitioner alongwith others is Director of the said company and the address of the company is Sharma Building Main Chowk Kharsi, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. The petitioner and other Directors of the company allured the people with attractive prizes and with bumper prize of Eon car. Approximately 800 people joined the company, however, only 66 people were given prizes in the draws and remaining 734 people did not get anything. All 800 people, who joined the company, paid Rs. 6000/- (Rs. 500/- for twelve months). Therefore, it is alleged that the company embezzled around Rs. 40,00,000/- (rupees forty lac) by cheating 734 people. Police investigated the matter, took into possession receipts, lottery tickets and laptops. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Account statements of the petitioner and accomplice were also obtained. The account statement of petitioner revealed that during 01.01.2015 to 16.03.2017 total sum of Rs. 31,43,649/- (rupees thirty one lac forty three thousand six hundred forty nine) was deposited and Rs. 31,43,239/- (rupees thirty one lac forty three thousand two hundred thirty nine) was withdrawn. Account statements of the petitioner and accomplice were also obtained. The account statement of petitioner revealed that during 01.01.2015 to 16.03.2017 total sum of Rs. 31,43,649/- (rupees thirty one lac forty three thousand six hundred forty nine) was deposited and Rs. 31,43,239/- (rupees thirty one lac forty three thousand two hundred thirty nine) was withdrawn. One Manoj has given nine cheques of different amounts to one Sanjeev Kumar (co-accused). All nine cheques were taken into possession by the police. Manoj Kumar has given total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- (rupees four lac fifteen thousand), through cheques and Rs. 8,89,250/- (rupees eight lac eighty nine thousand two hundred fifty), through receipts to Sanjeev Kumar. Likewise, other two agents have also given money to the petitioner and co-accused. As per the prosecution, lap tops of the petitioner and co-accused have been sent for data recovery to FSL, Junga, and the report is awaited. The total worth of the property of the petitioner and co-accused is yet to be ascertained. Lastly, the prosecution prayed for dismissal of the bail application of the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, being lady, having minor children and as she was not involved in commission of the offence, may be released on bail. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has cheated many persons and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will repeat the same offence and she can also tamper with the prosecution evidence by siphoning money, which she has collected and the chances of recovery of money will become bleaker. He has argued that as the petitioner has committed economic offence by cheating many people, she may not be released on bail. Lastly, he has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime, the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, without being held guilty, be not kept behind the bars and may be enlarged on bail. 7. Lastly, he has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime, the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, without being held guilty, be not kept behind the bars and may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner alongwith co-accused has been dealing with money of others and now she is not returning/repaying the money of the people. The people of the area have been duped and are deprived from their substantial amounts under the false promise of award of gifts/returns through monthly draws. This Court also findings that prima facie it seems that the petitioner and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar have misappropriated huge amount of the poor people. This Court finds that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, she will be in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and also to flee from justice, therefore, present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in her favour. The petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the petitioner approaches the learned Trail Court at any appropriate stage and the learned Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, this order shall not serve any hindrance to the learned Trial Court to conclude so. 8. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.