Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1156 (HP)

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-06-26

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail applications have been moved by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 33 of 2018, dated 03.05.2018, under Sections 419 and 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 66-C of the Information and Technology Act, registered in Police Station, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place is and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 03.05.2018 an FIR came to be registered in Police Station Sangrah, on the complaint of the Member Secretary SDA Scheme (Skill Development Allowance)-cum-district Employment Officer, Sirmaur, at Nahan. Tersely, the allegations against the petitioners are that they have made irregularities in the skill development allowance website whereby huge amount of government money has been misappropriated. When the matter was inquired into, it was found that the petitioners made illegal use of SDA software and uploaded SDA applications using official ID and password. They entered their password and personnel bank accounts number of different banks to get the credit of SDA allowance in their accounts. Thus, the petitioners managed to misappropriate funds from DEE, Hamirpur, RFF, Shimla and DEE, Sirmour, which comes to Rs.12,92,000/-. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, it was found that in total 123 applications were uploaded fraudulently by the petitioners by using their password and personnel bank accounts number of different banks and it was found with an intention to get the credit of SDA allowance in their accounts. The petitioners have joined the investigation and the investigation is till going on. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence, thus their bail applications be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence, thus their bail applications be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that the petitioners are residents of the place and are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars, so they may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioners have committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, they are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also the fact that the prosecution case is based upon documentary evidence, and also considering the overall aspects of the case, which have come on record, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 33 of 2018, dated 03.05.2018, under Sections 419 and 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 66-C of the Information and Technology Act, registered in Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.