Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1332 (HP)

Yash Pal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-09-09

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The first set of petitions has been maintained by petitioners, viz., Yash Pal, Rajender Singh, Niketan Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Desh Raj under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 69 of 2019, dated 25.04.2019, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. The record transpires that the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.07.2019, enlarged the above petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, initially till 25.07.2019 and the said order was extended time and again, in fact, order dated 05.07.2019 is still operative today. 2. The second set of petitions has been maintained by petitioner/complainant/objector, Shri Mujesh (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant/objector") under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., whereby cancellation of bail, granted to petitioners Desh Raj, Rajender Thakur, Yash Pal and Mohinder Singh, vide order dated 05.07.2019, has been sought. 3. All the petitions are being taken up together for consideration and disposal, as succinctly the gamut of the matter is interwoven and it would be inapt to take up both the above set of cases separately for consideration and disposal. 4. The petitioners averred in their petitions that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. 5. Police reports stand filed. As per the prosecution story, on 25.04.2019 complainant, Shri Mujesh Kumar (objector herein) made a written complaint to the police and alleged that in the year 2018-19 he and Yash Pal (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1276 of 2019), being his partner, were granted liquor licence for selling liquor in the areas of Gumma Shanan, Padhar, Old Mandi and Samkhetar. He has further contended that due to his personal problem he used to remain in his house and all the management was being looked after by his partner Yash Pal and Desh Raj, Mohinder, Niketan (brother of Yash Pal) and one Rajinder Singh. As per the complainant, they had current account in State Bank of India and through this account they used to deposit their tax with the Excise Department. As per the complainant, they had current account in State Bank of India and through this account they used to deposit their tax with the Excise Department. Petitioner Niketan had affable relations with one Shri Rishi, who used to work in SBI, where they used to deposit the tax. Subsequently, Niketan changed the mobile number for OTP, as earlier OTP used to come in his mobile. The complainant has further contended that they had three offices, viz., at Shanan, Padhar and Khaliyara and these offices were being looked after by the petitioners. Petitioner Desh Raj had good relations in Excise Department, so he, without any permit took a stock of approximately 4500 beer bottles and liquor, which was sold and the concerned Inspector used to check the stock in the shop, but as he had connived with the petitioners and did not take any action. This practice of selling liquor without any permit continued at Shanan and when the complainant asked, he was shown stock as per the permits. The complainant could not get any clue about the misdeeds of the petitioners. Later on, the Excise Inspector pressurized petitioners Desh Raj and Yashpal to deposit the due tax, which was ascertained to be one crore rupees. As per the complainant, the petitioners invested the said money in properties. Thereafter, liquor licence, for the next financial year was obtained in the name of petitioner Rajinder Singh and on 1st April the complainant convened a meeting with the petitioners to distribute the profit amongst them, but petitioner Desh Raj sought an excuse. The complainant came to Shanan for looking after liquor work and when he made telephonic calls to Desh Raj, his mobile was switched off. So, he asked for manual books from Mohinder Singh and Rajinder Singh and the next day, when he was present in liquor shop at Shanan, petitioner Mohinder, Rajinder, Niketan alongwith 4-5 persons came there and started abusing him and also scuffled with him. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact Desh Raj, but he did not pick up the phone and on the next day he picked up the call. Shri Pradeep Thakur whatsapped L-1 and L-13 account of Desh Raj, which revealed loss of sixty lac and liquor of rupees one crore was purchased illegally. So, the complainant telephoned the petitioners, but they threatened him. The complainant sought action against the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Thakur whatsapped L-1 and L-13 account of Desh Raj, which revealed loss of sixty lac and liquor of rupees one crore was purchased illegally. So, the complainant telephoned the petitioners, but they threatened him. The complainant sought action against the petitioners. Police, on the complaint, so filed by the complainant, registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police made the relevant recoveries and investigated all the records. It has come in the police investigation that total Rs.4,79,66,843/- had been embezzled by the petitioners and the said amount is recoverable from the petitioners. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the amount recoverable from the petitioners is huge and the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence of cheating and thereby caused huge financial loss to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 6. The complainant/objector, by filing petitions under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. sought cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 05.07.2019. Precisely, the objector is seeking cancellation of bail on the premises that on 13.07.2019, when the complainant was coming back from Mandi to Dehra, petitioner Desh Raj stopped him and pressurized him to withdraw the FIR, wherein the petitioners were granted interim bail. As per the complainant, the petitioners are misusing the liberty granted to them. It is further contended that the petitioners, through their misdeeds, committed the offence of cheating and huge public money is involved in the matter. As per the complainant, the petitioners, in connivance with others, committed a big scam. Lastly, the complainant prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant/objector and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dispute, if any, is of civil nature and police has registered the FIR. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required in the instant case. The petitioners are joining and cooperating in the investigation. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dispute, if any, is of civil nature and police has registered the FIR. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required in the instant case. The petitioners are joining and cooperating in the investigation. The petitioners are residents of Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the petitions be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, as the amount involved is huge and the recovery is yet to be effected. He has further argued that the petitioners, if enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that keeping in view the huge amount, which is involved in the present petitions, the petitions be dismissed. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant/objector argued that the petitioners have cheated the complainant and caused huge pecuniary loss to the State exchequer. He has further argued that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application be dismissed. 10. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of Himachal Pradesh and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police. They are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the bail applications be allowed. 11. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police. They are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the bail applications be allowed. 11. At this stage, considering the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, which shows the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences, the fact that huge amount of government money is involved and the same is yet to be recovered, the fact that there is every likelihood that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present are not the fit cases where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. 12. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petitions (Cr.MPs(M) No. 1276 to 1280 of 2019) being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. 13. With the disposal of the petitions preferred by the petitioners, Cr.MPs(M) No. 1375 & 1419 to 1421 of 2019 (petitions preferred by the complainant/objector) are disposed of as having become infructuous. 14. In view of the above, all the petitions stand disposed of. 15. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merits of the case and the same shall be adjudicated on its own. As prayed, copy dasti. JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The first set of petitions has been maintained by petitioners, viz., Yash Pal, Rajender Singh, Niketan Kumar, Mohinder Singh and Desh Raj under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 69 of 2019, dated 25.04.2019, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. The record transpires that the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.07.2019, enlarged the above petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, initially till 25.07.2019 and the said order was extended time and again, in fact, order dated 05.07.2019 is still operative today. 2. 2. The second set of petitions has been maintained by petitioner/complainant/objector, Shri Mujesh (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant/objector") under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., whereby cancellation of bail, granted to petitioners Desh Raj, Rajender Thakur, Yash Pal and Mohinder Singh, vide order dated 05.07.2019, has been sought. 3. All the petitions are being taken up together for consideration and disposal, as succinctly the gamut of the matter is interwoven and it would be inapt to take up both the above set of cases separately for consideration and disposal. 4. The petitioners averred in their petitions that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. 5. Police reports stand filed. As per the prosecution story, on 25.04.2019 complainant, Shri Mujesh Kumar (objector herein) made a written complaint to the police and alleged that in the year 2018-19 he and Yash Pal (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1276 of 2019), being his partner, were granted liquor licence for selling liquor in the areas of Gumma Shanan, Padhar, Old Mandi and Samkhetar. He has further contended that due to his personal problem he used to remain in his house and all the management was being looked after by his partner Yash Pal and Desh Raj, Mohinder, Niketan (brother of Yash Pal) and one Rajinder Singh. As per the complainant, they had current account in State Bank of India and through this account they used to deposit their tax with the Excise Department. Petitioner Niketan had affable relations with one Shri Rishi, who used to work in SBI, where they used to deposit the tax. Subsequently, Niketan changed the mobile number for OTP, as earlier OTP used to come in his mobile. The complainant has further contended that they had three offices, viz., at Shanan, Padhar and Khaliyara and these offices were being looked after by the petitioners. Petitioner Desh Raj had good relations in Excise Department, so he, without any permit took a stock of approximately 4500 beer bottles and liquor, which was sold and the concerned Inspector used to check the stock in the shop, but as he had connived with the petitioners and did not take any action. Petitioner Desh Raj had good relations in Excise Department, so he, without any permit took a stock of approximately 4500 beer bottles and liquor, which was sold and the concerned Inspector used to check the stock in the shop, but as he had connived with the petitioners and did not take any action. This practice of selling liquor without any permit continued at Shanan and when the complainant asked, he was shown stock as per the permits. The complainant could not get any clue about the misdeeds of the petitioners. Later on, the Excise Inspector pressurized petitioners Desh Raj and Yashpal to deposit the due tax, which was ascertained to be one crore rupees. As per the complainant, the petitioners invested the said money in properties. Thereafter, liquor licence, for the next financial year was obtained in the name of petitioner Rajinder Singh and on 1st April the complainant convened a meeting with the petitioners to distribute the profit amongst them, but petitioner Desh Raj sought an excuse. The complainant came to Shanan for looking after liquor work and when he made telephonic calls to Desh Raj, his mobile was switched off. So, he asked for manual books from Mohinder Singh and Rajinder Singh and the next day, when he was present in liquor shop at Shanan, petitioner Mohinder, Rajinder, Niketan alongwith 4-5 persons came there and started abusing him and also scuffled with him. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact Desh Raj, but he did not pick up the phone and on the next day he picked up the call. Shri Pradeep Thakur whatsapped L-1 and L-13 account of Desh Raj, which revealed loss of sixty lac and liquor of rupees one crore was purchased illegally. So, the complainant telephoned the petitioners, but they threatened him. The complainant sought action against the petitioners. Police, on the complaint, so filed by the complainant, registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police made the relevant recoveries and investigated all the records. It has come in the police investigation that total Rs.4,79,66,843/- had been embezzled by the petitioners and the said amount is recoverable from the petitioners. Police prepared the spot map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police made the relevant recoveries and investigated all the records. It has come in the police investigation that total Rs.4,79,66,843/- had been embezzled by the petitioners and the said amount is recoverable from the petitioners. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the amount recoverable from the petitioners is huge and the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence of cheating and thereby caused huge financial loss to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 6. The complainant/objector, by filing petitions under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. sought cancellation of bail granted vide order dated 05.07.2019. Precisely, the objector is seeking cancellation of bail on the premises that on 13.07.2019, when the complainant was coming back from Mandi to Dehra, petitioner Desh Raj stopped him and pressurized him to withdraw the FIR, wherein the petitioners were granted interim bail. As per the complainant, the petitioners are misusing the liberty granted to them. It is further contended that the petitioners, through their misdeeds, committed the offence of cheating and huge public money is involved in the matter. As per the complainant, the petitioners, in connivance with others, committed a big scam. Lastly, the complainant prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant/objector and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dispute, if any, is of civil nature and police has registered the FIR. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required in the instant case. The petitioners are joining and cooperating in the investigation. The petitioners are residents of Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the petitions be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, as the amount involved is huge and the recovery is yet to be effected. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required, as the amount involved is huge and the recovery is yet to be effected. He has further argued that the petitioners, if enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that keeping in view the huge amount, which is involved in the present petitions, the petitions be dismissed. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant/objector argued that the petitioners have cheated the complainant and caused huge pecuniary loss to the State exchequer. He has further argued that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application be dismissed. 10. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are permanent residents of Himachal Pradesh and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police. They are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the bail applications be allowed. 11. At this stage, considering the material collected by the police during the course of investigation, which shows the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences, the fact that huge amount of government money is involved and the same is yet to be recovered, the fact that there is every likelihood that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present are not the fit cases where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. 12. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petitions (Cr.MPs(M) No. 1276 to 1280 of 2019) being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. 13. With the disposal of the petitions preferred by the petitioners, Cr.MPs(M) No. 1375 & 1419 to 1421 of 2019 (petitions preferred by the complainant/objector) are disposed of as having become infructuous. 14. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petitions (Cr.MPs(M) No. 1276 to 1280 of 2019) being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. 13. With the disposal of the petitions preferred by the petitioners, Cr.MPs(M) No. 1375 & 1419 to 1421 of 2019 (petitions preferred by the complainant/objector) are disposed of as having become infructuous. 14. In view of the above, all the petitions stand disposed of. 15. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the merits of the case and the same shall be adjudicated on its own. As prayed, copy dasti.