Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1075 (HP)

Sajid Hussain v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-08-01

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No. 260 of 2017, dated 22.10.2017, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Chamba, 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 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, on 22.10.2017 Shri Mukesh Kumar (complainant) made a complaint to the police. The complaint pertained to cheating of Rs. 7,10,000/- on the pretext of managing work visa. As per the complainant, he is resident of District Chamba and completed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in the year 2012. He has further stated in his complaint that as he was unemployed he talked to one Sachin Thakur, who is in Merchant Navy Kalkata to get him employed, in turn, he came to know about one Sajid Hosain (petitioner herein), who used to manage work visa. So, the complainant telephoned the petitioner and the petitioner assured him that within two months he will get his work visa of Australia for three years. The petitioner asked for Rs. 7,10,000/- and other documents. As the complainant was not acquainted with the petitioner, so he asked Sachin Thakur that he will transfer the amount in his account and the complainant requested him to further transfer the amount to the petitioner. The complainant transferred a total sum of Rs. 7,10,000/- in the accounts of Sahin Thakur and the petitioner. The petitioner despite repeated assurances did not mange the work visa for the petitioner and he kept on giving evasive reasons for not providing the work visa. Subsequently, the petitioner switched off his mobile, so the petitioner moved the complaint. On the premise of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police obtained the relevant bank records. A police team was sent to Kolkata and during the investigation the petitioner absconded and on 24.04.2018 he filed the instant petition seeking his pre arrest bail. On the premise of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police obtained the relevant bank records. A police team was sent to Kolkata and during the investigation the petitioner absconded and on 24.04.2018 he filed the instant petition seeking his pre arrest bail. On 25.04.2018 the petitioner joined the investigation and divulged that he is acquainted with Sachin Thakur. On being asked by Sachin Thakur the petitioner had a word with one Suman Manna, who asked Rs. 6,50,000/- for this work. It has come in the investigation that the complainant on different dates transferred substantial amount in the accounts of the petitioner and Sachin Thakur and said Sachin Thakur has already withdrawn Rs. 2,78,300/- from his account through ATM. As per the police, Suman Manna is yet to be interrogated and he got a cue of police and absconded from his native place, Mindnapur. Said Suman Manna telephoned the petitioner and said that he wants to return the money and he also confessed his guilt. Despite best efforts the main accused, i.e., Suman Manna could not be arrested, as he is evading his arrest. Police recovered the passport of the complainant from the house of Suman Manna. As per the police, accused Suman Manna wants to return the amount and as he wants to have some time to arrange the amount he absconded. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the complainant transferred Rs. 7,10,000/-. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed, as the main accused, i.e., Suman Manna is evading his arrest and police needs the custody of the petitioner for interrogation and further investigation. Investigation in the case is still going on and in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is likelihood that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so 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 report of the police, 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. 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 has further argued that the petitioner's role in the alleged crime, as per the prosecution story, is very limited and for this he should not be sent behind the bars. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and the matter is under investigation. It has been argued that in case the petitioner at this stage is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice. It has also been argued that the main accused is evading arrest, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the facts that the petitioner has joined the investigation, but he is not co-operating in the same, the petitioner is resident of West Bengal, the main accused, i.e., Suman Manna, is yet to be arrested in the case and he is evading his arrest, the fact that the petitioner has received the substantial amount from the complainant, the petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and also in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of West Bengal and also keeping in view the overall material, which has come on record, the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. The petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.