Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 302 (HP)

Karam Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 56 of 2016, dated 16.06.2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 3. Police reports stand filed. As per the police report, on 08.05.2016, Shri Yog Raj, made a complaint to the police, wherein he has alleged that during the year 2006 the petitioner was Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Sanwal. As per the allegations, the petitioner depicted the name Smt. Jatti in MGNREGS work, whereas, Smt. Jatti used to work daily as Cook in Primary School, Sanwal. This fact came into light when one Shri Rasheeda sought information under RTI Act. The muster rolls of MGNREGS disclosed that Smt. Jatti w.e.f. 01.11.2006 to 30.11.2006 worked as Cook in Primary School, Sanwal, and w.e.f. 01.11.2006 to 30.11.2006 she was also shown as working in the play ground Sanwal. Smt. Jatti, on being asked, divulged that she neither worked in the work of play ground nor she was paid any money for that. It is alleged that the petitioner by doing so usurped money by using the name of Smt. Jatti. Upon the complaint, so made by Shri Yog Raj, a case was registered. Relevant record was taken into possession and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is now joining the investigation and co-operating. The petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and he is also in a position to flee from justice, so it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. The petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of arrest, in case FIR No. 56 of 2016, dated 08.05.2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner 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. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner 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.