Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 568 (HP)

Archna Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-07

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 her on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case FIR No. 45 of2017, dated 27.03.2017, under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) PC Act, Police Station Barotiwala, Police District Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. It is further averred that petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so she be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 27.03.2017 a complaint was received by the police from Managing Director Himachal Pradesh Beverages Ltd. (complainant), wherein it was averred that one Ankush Chauhan, ETI, presently posted as Assistant Depot Manager at HPBL Depot Baddi, located at BBNDA Baddi, Factory Outlet, Shop No. 6-7, Suncity Road, Baddi, District Solan, sold liquor on credit basis to the retail licensees and due to this an amount of Rs.3,22,51,948/- (three crore twenty two lac fifty one thousand nine hundred forty eight) is recoverable from the licensees. Said Ankush Chauhan had the knowledge that the provisions of Liquor Sales Police of HPBL for the year 2016-17 do not allow credit sale. It was further averred in the complaint that the petitioner purchased stock of Rs.1,03,09,021.51/- and only paid Rs.41,26,050/- and an amount is Rs.61,82,971.51/- is yet recoverable. Like this, huge amounts of money are also recoverable from other accused. On the basis of the complaint, so made, a case came to be registered against the petitioner and investigation ensued. The investigation revealed that total amount of Rs.53,26,264.41/- has not been deposited by the petitioner in the government exchequer. The petitioner and other accused in connivance with Ankush Chauhan caused huge loss to the public money. 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 petitioner and other accused in connivance with Ankush Chauhan caused huge loss to the public money. 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, so she may be released on bail. To support his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon’ble High Court rendered in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445 of 2003, titled Narinder Pal Singh Chauhan & Ors vs. State of H.P. 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 and huge amount of government money is yet to be recovered from her, so the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. This Hon’ble High Court in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445 of 2003, titled Narinder Pal Singh Chauhan & Ors vs. State of H.P., has held as under: “13. As per the police reports the bail applications are opposed on the ground that custodial interrogation in the case is required. It is also mentioned in the report filed in case Fir No. 4 of 2003 that the investigation in the case is still at the initial stage and the Contractor Suresh Kumar, who is real brother-in- law of Mr. Mahinder Singh, Ex. PWD Minister, is an influential person and may intimidate the witnesses and the accused may affect the investigation adversely. I fail to understand if this was the position why the State Government, should have conceded that Suresh Kumar co-Contractor in case FIR No. 4 is not to be arrested in the case. Mahinder Singh, Ex. PWD Minister, is an influential person and may intimidate the witnesses and the accused may affect the investigation adversely. I fail to understand if this was the position why the State Government, should have conceded that Suresh Kumar co-Contractor in case FIR No. 4 is not to be arrested in the case. Whatever may be the reasons for the State not to arrest Suresh Kumar and K.L. Rana its opposition to the present applications as in the police reports is rendered of no use and consequences because in the case of two sets of co- Contractors, if the main conspirator/accused is not to be arrested, then he opposition for release of other co-Contractor falls to the ground. The Court will have to maintain the balance by treating the equally placed persons alike. Thus, in view of the principle of parity, the present accused persons are entitled for anticipatory bail as prayed for by them.” However, in the instant case other co-accused have been arrested and it is not the case of the petitioner that the co-accused are not required to be arrested, so the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that huge amount of government money is to be recovered from the petitioner and also considering the fact that there is every likelihood that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in her favour. 8. In view of the above, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.