Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1326 (HP)

Rajnish Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-07-17

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has 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. 73 of 2018, dated 28.05.2018, under Section 39(1)(a) of the H.P. Excise Act, registered in Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 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, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 28.05.2018, police intercepted a truck, bearing registration No. HP24B- 1466, and the said truck was found illegally transporting 50 boxes of Indian made foreign liquor, i.e., ‘Party Special Deluxe Whisky’. Total 600 bottles were recovered and each bottle was of 750 ml. 255 boxes of Indian made foreign liquor, i.e., ‘Crazy Romeo Whisky’, which was for sale in Arunachal Pradesh only, were also recovered and total 3060 bottles, each 750 ml. The truck was being driven by Manoj Kumar and he was accompanied by one Manmohan Singh. Driver, Manoj Kumar, divulged that an Alto car, which is going ahead of the truck, having registration No. HP22T-9212 and being driven by one Ravi Kumar (co-accused), is other person involved alongwith them. Police conducted all the formalities relating to seizure of the contraband etc. A case was registered and the investigation ensued. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot was photographed. It was unearthed during the course of investigation that the contraband was loaded in the truck at Jalori Jot, Kullu, and the Alto car, which was going ahead of the truck, was being occupied by the petitioners and co-accused Ravi Kumar. Police arrested the driver and passenger of the truck. During the course of interrogation, driver of the truck, Manoj Kumar, divulged that on 26.05.2018 accused Ravi Kumar telephoned him and hired the truck for Rs.20,000/- form Jalori Jot to Tarakwari/Bhoranj and he also told him that contraband is to be transported in the truck. So, Manoj Kumar alongwith Manmohan Singh started towards to Jalori Jot, but accused Ravi Kumar telephoned Manoj Kumar and asked him to come to Larji. So, Manoj Kumar alongwith Manmohan Singh started towards to Jalori Jot, but accused Ravi Kumar telephoned Manoj Kumar and asked him to come to Larji. At Larji he found an Alto Car, having registration No. HP22T-9212, which was being driven by accused Ravi Kumar and its other occupants were the petitioners. The driver of the truck was made to follow the alto car and when they reached Khanag they parked the truck there and Ravi Kumar and the petitioner went somewhere. On the subsequent morning, after 12 to 13 kilo meters from Khanag, the contraband was loaded in the truck and the same was being transported upto the truck in a pickup. Thereafter, accused Ravi Kumar and the petitioner made the truck to follow Alto Car, having Registration No. HP22T-9212. The truck reached at Bassi during the night and stopped near a dhabha. Accused Ravi Kumar and the petitioners went somewhere and in the morning accused Ravi came and took the truck near Amb Gallu. Accused Ravi Kumar was arrested by the police and the petitioner, in order to evade their arrest, fled away. Later on, the petitioners joined in the investigation and now they are co-operating in the investigation. As per the prosecution, petitioner Rajnish Thakur is of criminal mentality and he has been found involved in many other criminal matters. During the course of investigation, no involvement of petitioner Prakash Chand was found in the alleged offence. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may 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 report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. It has been argued that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. The petitioners are residents of the place 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. 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. 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 and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are residents of the place and the fact that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars, as they are joining and co-operating in the investigation, 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. 73 of 2018, dated 28.05.2018, under Section 39(1)(a) of the H.P. Excise Act, registered in Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, 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. (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.