Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 328 (HP)

Budh Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-13

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 19 of 2015, dated 28.04.2015, under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act, registered at Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla, 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 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. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Shri Rishi Sharma, the then Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Patlikuhala, made a written complaint to SHO (CID) , Police Station Bharari, District Shimla, for lodging a case against the petitioner. As per the allegations of the complainant, the petitioner on 02.09.2010 approached the Bank for availing Kisan Credit Card loan of Rs. 3,00, 000/- (rupees three lac) for agricultural activities. The petitioner submitted documents, including jamabandi dated 01.09.2010 of village Up Muhal Katai, Phati and Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, which was issued by Patwari Roshan Lal (co-accused) . After procedural formalities loan was granted to the petitioner, but he could not maintain financial discipline and bank initiated action against the petitioner. During the inquiry it was unearthed that the land, as shown in the aforesaid jambandi does not exist and a fake jamabandi was issued by the concerned Patwari, which was further verified by the empanelled Advocate of the Bank. Thus, the petitioner cheated the bank and hatched criminal conspiracy with Roshan Lal, Patwari and Chuni Lal Sharma, Advocate. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner and investigation ensued. Police verified the records qua land in question and it was found that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused Rohan Lal and Chunni Lal hatched a conspiracy and got sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,00, 000/- (rupees three lac) . As per the police, the petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2017 and the investigation in the case is complete and challan will be filed soon. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed. 4. 3,00, 000/- (rupees three lac) . As per the police, the petitioner was arrested on 27.12.2017 and the investigation in the case is complete and challan will be filed soon. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He is resident of the place and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage taking into considering the fact that one Shri Jagdish Kumar has filed an affidavit alongwith jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 in this Court, stating that he is ready to mortgage his land for securing the loan amount of the petitioner. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the affidavit, so filed by Shri Jagdish Kumar, whereby he is ready to mortgage his land in order to secure the loan, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in connection with FIR No. 19 of 2015, dated 28.04.2015, under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of PC Act, registered at Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla, H.P., he shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (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. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.