Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1725 (HP)

Anup Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-09-25

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Bail petitioner namely Anup Ram, has approached this Court by way of instant bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr. PC praying therein for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 27/15 dated 28.4.2015, under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at police station H.P. C.I.D. Bharari, Shimla, Tehsil Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Sequel to order dated 13.9.2018, Dy. S.P. Rahul Sharma, SCRB CID, Shimla, H.P. has come present alongwith records. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of record reveals that petitioner had earlier filed petition under Section 438 Cr. PC before this Court and this Court while granting interim bail to the petitioner, directed him to deposit the loan amount on or before 31.10.2015. But since the petitioner failed to comply with aforesaid condition/stipulation with regard to deposit of loan amount, contained in order dated 13.10.2015, passed by this Court, he came be arrested on 31.7.2018. Subsequently, bail petitioner moved an application under Section 439 Cr. PC in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu praying therein for grant of regular bail, however, learned Special Judge, Kullu vide order dated 13.8.2018, rejected the bail on the ground that since bail petitioner failed to comply with order dated 14.7.2015, passed by the High Court, he cannot be enlarged on bail. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for grant of bail. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 5. Having carefully perused impugned dated 13.08.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same because admittedly, bail petitioner failed to comply with condition imposed by this Court in its order dated 14.7.2015, while granting interim bail. 5. Having carefully perused impugned dated 13.08.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same because admittedly, bail petitioner failed to comply with condition imposed by this Court in its order dated 14.7.2015, while granting interim bail. But taking note of the fact that investigation in the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, this Court sees no valid reason to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period during the pendency of the trial, especially when person namely Surat Ram, who happens to be brother of bail petitioner, has filed an affidavit before this Court stating therein that he is ready and willing to mortgage his land measuring 0-02-53 hect. situated in Muhal Deoghra Phati Jana Kothi Nagar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. 6. Above named Mr. Surat 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 the bank to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that bank concerned advanced a sum of Rs. 3.00 lac to the petitioner, whereas as per contents of para-2 of the affidavit, average value of the land in question sought to be mortgaged by Surat Ram is Rs. 3,20,000/- as per circle rate. Deponent Surat Ram has also stated that market value of the land sought to be mortgaged by him is not less than Rs. 6.00 lac. 7. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that respondent- State has no objection to the aforesaid proposal made by the petitioner, but that would be subject to the verification of revenue record pertaining to the property mentioned in the affidavit. 8. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed and order dated 13.8.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, in bail application No. 139 of 2018 is quashed and set-aside and learned special Judge, Kullu, is directed to consider grant of bail to the petitioner subject to the verification of revenue record of land as described herein above. In case, property as mentioned by Surat Ram is found to be of the value as detailed in para 2 of the application, same may be mortgaged in the name of the Bank concerned and petitioner be released on bail subject to usual conditions. 9. In case, property as mentioned by Surat Ram is found to be of the value as detailed in para 2 of the application, same may be mortgaged in the name of the Bank concerned and petitioner be released on bail subject to usual conditions. 9. For the aforesaid purpose, let the matter be listed before the court below on 28.9.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that on the aforesaid date, bail petitioner shall be represented by some counsel in the court below. Registry is also directed to apprise the court below with regard to the passing of instant order to enable it to do the needful within the stipulated period. Since bail petitioner is behind the bars, this Court hopes and trusts that court below shall do the needful expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week.