Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1460 (HP)

Satinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-08-06

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of instant petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, challenge has been laid to order dated 28.6.2018 passed by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in CrMP No. 169/18//278/18, whereby bail granted to the petitioner on 25.6.2018, has been cancelled and he has been taken into custody. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner had moved a bail petition under Section 438 CrPC being CrMP No. 840 of 2015 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 32/15 dated 28.4.2015 under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Section 13(i)(d)ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, HP CID, Shimla. This court vide order dated 14.7.2015 (Annexure P-1) granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions inter alia that bail petitioner shall deposit loan amount allegedly taken by him on or before 31.10.2015 with the bank concerned. Since petitioner failed to deposit the amount in terms of aforesaid order passed by this Court, he came to be arrested, whereafter, petitioner filed an application under Section 439 CrPC before the learned Special Judge, Kullu, praying therein for grant of regular bail and learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, vide order dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure P-4), released the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions. However, the fact remains that respondent-State subsequently filed an application (Annexure P-7), praying therein for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 25.6.2018. 3. Respondent-State averred before the learned Court below that since petitioner failed to deposit loan amount in terms of order dated 14.7.2015 passed by this Court in CrMP(M) No. 840 of 2015, whereby this Court, while granting anticipatory bail, had specifically directed him to deposit entire loan amount on or before 31.10.2015, bail petitioner could not be released on bail. Learned Special Judge, taking note of the averments contained in the application for cancellation of bail, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner on 25.6.2018, on the ground that petitioner had not come before the Court with clean hands and concealed material facts with regard to order passed by this Court, whereby he was directed to deposit loan amount on or before 31.10.2015. 4. 4. Though, having carefully perused impugned order dated 28.6.2018 (Annexure P-8), this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same because admittedly, factum with regard to passing of order dated 14.7.2015, wherein petitioner was granted bail subject to the condition of depositing entire loan amount before 31.10.2015, was never brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge, who subsequently on the basis of record as well as statement given by the learned prosecutor that investigation is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from him, proceeded to grant regular bail to the petitioner. However, this court taking note of the fact that investigation in the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, sees no valid reason to keep the petitioner behind the bars, especially when Shri Chobe Ram son of Shri Daya Ram, who happens to be father of present petitioner, has filed an affidavit before this Court stating therein that he is ready and willing to mortgage his land comprised in Khewat No. 36 (Share 15/32 measuring 0-01-66 H), Khewat Nno. 3 (share 15/64 measuring 0- 04-63 H) and Khewat No. 38 (share 5/6.4 measuring 0-00-82 H) total measuring 0-07-11 H, situate at Mohal Soyal, Tehsil Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in favour of the Bank concerned. Chobe Ram, in his affidavit has categorically stated that he has no objection in case aforesaid property is mortgaged in lieu of loan amount advanced by Bank to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that Bank concerned has advanced a sum of Rs. 3.00 Lakh to the petitioner, whereas as per averments contained in para-3 of the affidavit, average value of land in question is Rs. 527 per square metre and total value of land sought to be mortgaged by Chobe Ram is 527x 711 = Rs. 3,74,697/-. 5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, having perused averments contained in the affidavit, fairly states that respondent-State has no objection to the aforesaid proposal made by petitioner but that would be subject to verification of revenue record pertaining to property mentioned in the affidavit. 6. 3,74,697/-. 5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, having perused averments contained in the affidavit, fairly states that respondent-State has no objection to the aforesaid proposal made by petitioner but that would be subject to verification of revenue record pertaining to property mentioned in the affidavit. 6. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed and order dated 28.6.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in CrMP No. 169/18//278/18 is quashed and set aside and learned Special Judge-II, Kullu is directed to consider grant of bail to the petitioner, subject to verification of revenue record of land described herein above. In case property as mentioned by the Chobe Ram is found to be of the value as detailed in para-3, same may be mortgaged in the name of Bank concerned and petitioner be released on bail, subject to usual conditions. For the aforesaid purpose, let the matter be listed before the learned Special Judge- II, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh on 8.8.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to cause presence of counsel in the court below and also to apprise it regarding passing of this order. 7. Registry of this Court to apprise the learned Court below about passing of the instant judgment, enabling learned Court below to do the needful expeditiously. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Copy dasti.