Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 532 (HP)

Sarita Soni v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-03

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing her on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case FIR No. 200 of 2016, dated 26.12.2016, under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She 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 se may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 26.12.2016 the petitioner moved an application before the police, wherein she has stated that she was cheated by one Praveen Kumar. She has stated that on her asking S/Shri Surinder Singh, Gurubachan, Ravinder Kumar, Ashish Dogra and Vinay agreed to go to Malasia and on her asking they paid Rs. 7,20, 000/- (rupees seven lac twenty thousand) to her and she further transferred the same to Praveen Kumar, but thereafter said Praveen Kumar did not do anything. Praveen Kumar also abused and threatened the petitioner. So, the petitioner, through an application, reported the matter to Police, Police Station Nagrota Bagwan. Praveen Kumar also agreed to return the money paid to him by the above said boys. On the basis of the complaint, so moved by the petitioner, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. Transaction details were obtained. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was also found involved in cheating the above boys on the pretext of sending them to Malasia for work. The accomplices of the petitioner have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner also received commission amount and now the petitioner has returned some of the money to the above boys. The petitioner was in fact working as agent to other accused persons and the boys, who were cheated, knew only her. The petitioner used to take more money from the people and after detecting her commission she used to send the remaining money to her accomplices. Rs. 2,90, 000/- (rupees two lac ninety thousand) remains to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner used to take more money from the people and after detecting her commission she used to send the remaining money to her accomplices. Rs. 2,90, 000/- (rupees two lac ninety thousand) remains to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is very a clever lady and in case she is enlarged on bail she may tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice. 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 joining and co-operating in the investigation and her 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as she is resident of the place, so she may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, she 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 and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and considering the overall aspects of the case, which have come on record, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of her arrest, is required to be exercised in her favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of arrest, in case FIR No. 200 of 2016, dated 26.12.2016, under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., on her furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25, 000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 25, 000/- (rupees twenty five 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. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.