Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1402 (HP)

Manjeet Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2019-09-18

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
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 him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. RC0962017A0008 of 2017, dated 15.12.2017, under Sections 167, 193, 195, 347, 389, 384 and 511 IPC with Section 120B IPC and Sections 7,13(2) and 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 58 of the ND & PS Act, registered with Police Station CBI, ACB, 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 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, precisely the allegations against the petitioner are that he, through corrupt and illegal means, with the help of police personnel tried to extort Rs. 20,00,000/- from one Shri Ravi Kumar. The petitioner alongwith his accomplices threatened Shri Ravi Kumar and his father that in case they fail to pay Rs. 20,00,000/-, they would be falsely implicated in a case of narcotics. With the above vignette of allegations against the accused CBI (respondent herein) investigated the matter and found that the petitioner is deeply involved in the matter alongwith his accomplices. As per the CBI, in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is possibility that he may influence the witnesses by threatening or inducing them and also try to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from disclosing the facts to CBI. On the above premises, CBI sought dismissal of the bail application of the petitioner. 4. Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as under: A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 12th May, 2017, passed in Cr.M.P(M) No. 407 of 2017, directed the respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) to conduct an inquiry into different complaints, one of which was filed by Shri Ravi Kumar, who has been indicted in FIR No. 21 of 2016, registered at Police Station Mandi. Cr.MP(M) No. 407 of 2017 was filed by Shri Ravi Kumar under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail. Cr.MP(M) No. 407 of 2017 was filed by Shri Ravi Kumar under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail. Said Shri Ravi Kumar was booked under Sections 21,60 and 85 of the ND&PS Act and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the hearing of bail petition moved by Shri Ravi Kumar, the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondent/Sate to conduct an inquiry into the allegations leveled by Shri Ravi Kumar and his father. Thereafter, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and a case was registered by CBI, ACB, Shimla against the petitioner and co-accused Ram Lal, the then ASI, Pradeep Kumar, the then Constable, and Jai Lal, the then SI, PS Sadar, Mandi, H.P. On 01.12.2017, status report was filed in the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and it was accepted. The Hon'ble Court ordered to convert the case into regular case under various Sections of IPC and Section 58 of the ND&PS Act. So, a case was registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons. Central Bureau of Investigation is opposing the bail application of the petitioner chiefly on the grounds that the present petitioner is the main bigwig and he connived with other accused persons. The petitioner alongwith his accomplices falsely implicated Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal in narcotics case. Central Bureau of Investigation investigated the matter and found that Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal have been falsely implicated in a case. The petitioner alongwith others demanded Rs.20,00,000/- lac from Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal and threatened them that in case they fail to pay the money a case of smuggling would be foisted on them. As per the status report, so filed by the CBI, Shri Ravi Kumar and Roshan Lal were perfidiously roped in a false case of narcotics, as they failed to pay the money. The CBI has filed an exhaustive and elaborative status report, which depicts that the petitioner alongwith others committed the crime. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he is the main bigwig, in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses by threatening or inducing them and will try to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from disclosing the facts to the CBI. There is possibility that the petitioner may flee from justice. There is possibility that the petitioner may flee from justice. The bail application has also been opposed on the ground that the petitioner is habitual criminal and many cases have been lodged against him. The CBI sought the dismissal of the bail of the petitioner on the above enumerated factual matrix and grounds. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the CBI and gone through the record, including the status report, carefully. 6. 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 petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if in the event of his arrest, he is enlarged on bail. He has argued that co-accused Ram Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court, so the learned counsel for the petitioner sought that on the ground of parity, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. Conversely, learned Counsel for the CBI has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a felonious act of trying to extort money. He has further argued that the petitioner is the bigwig in the present case and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that the some more cases have been registered against the petitioner and there is possibility that in case he is enlarged on bail, he may thwart justice. The petitioner is resident of Punjab and is habitual offender, so the bail application may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, he is joining the investigation and co-operating in it. The petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that co-accused Ram Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court, so on the basis of principle of parity, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail and the petition be allowed. 8. He has further argued that co-accused Ram Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court, so on the basis of principle of parity, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail and the petition be allowed. 8. Indeed, the principle of parity has exceptions and these exceptions are far and wide. The available record reveals that in the instant case the petitioner is the main bigwig and he played a key role in falsely getting Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal roped in a case of narcotics. The investigation conducted by the CBI shows that the petitioner was deeply involved in the crime. The facts emerging out of the investigation got lateral support of the witnesses, while their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This Court has meticulously examined the material, which has come on record, considered the fact that the petitioner is resident of Punjab, involved in many other cases, the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioner, the fact that there is possibility that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, keeping in view his role in the alleged offence and also considering all the ancillary material, which has come on record, and without ornately discussing the same, at this stage, finds that the petitioner cannot be treated with the yardstick of principle of parity. The benefit of principle of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 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 him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. RC0962017A0008 of 2017, dated 15.12.2017, under Sections 167, 193, 195, 347, 389, 384 and 511 IPC with Section 120B IPC and Sections 7,13(2) and 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 58 of the ND & PS Act, registered with Police Station CBI, ACB, 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. 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, precisely the allegations against the petitioner are that he, through corrupt and illegal means, with the help of police personnel tried to extort Rs. 20,00,000/- from one Shri Ravi Kumar. The petitioner alongwith his accomplices threatened Shri Ravi Kumar and his father that in case they fail to pay Rs. 20,00,000/-, they would be falsely implicated in a case of narcotics. With the above vignette of allegations against the accused CBI (respondent herein) investigated the matter and found that the petitioner is deeply involved in the matter alongwith his accomplices. As per the CBI, in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is possibility that he may influence the witnesses by threatening or inducing them and also try to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from disclosing the facts to CBI. On the above premises, CBI sought dismissal of the bail application of the petitioner. 4. Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as under: A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 12th May, 2017, passed in Cr.M.P(M) No. 407 of 2017, directed the respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) to conduct an inquiry into different complaints, one of which was filed by Shri Ravi Kumar, who has been indicted in FIR No. 21 of 2016, registered at Police Station Mandi. Cr.MP(M) No. 407 of 2017 was filed by Shri Ravi Kumar under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail. Said Shri Ravi Kumar was booked under Sections 21,60 and 85 of the ND&PS Act and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the hearing of bail petition moved by Shri Ravi Kumar, the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondent/Sate to conduct an inquiry into the allegations leveled by Shri Ravi Kumar and his father. Said Shri Ravi Kumar was booked under Sections 21,60 and 85 of the ND&PS Act and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the hearing of bail petition moved by Shri Ravi Kumar, the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench directed the respondent/Sate to conduct an inquiry into the allegations leveled by Shri Ravi Kumar and his father. Thereafter, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and a case was registered by CBI, ACB, Shimla against the petitioner and co-accused Ram Lal, the then ASI, Pradeep Kumar, the then Constable, and Jai Lal, the then SI, PS Sadar, Mandi, H.P. On 01.12.2017, status report was filed in the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and it was accepted. The Hon'ble Court ordered to convert the case into regular case under various Sections of IPC and Section 58 of the ND&PS Act. So, a case was registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons. Central Bureau of Investigation is opposing the bail application of the petitioner chiefly on the grounds that the present petitioner is the main bigwig and he connived with other accused persons. The petitioner alongwith his accomplices falsely implicated Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal in narcotics case. Central Bureau of Investigation investigated the matter and found that Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal have been falsely implicated in a case. The petitioner alongwith others demanded Rs.20,00,000/- lac from Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal and threatened them that in case they fail to pay the money a case of smuggling would be foisted on them. As per the status report, so filed by the CBI, Shri Ravi Kumar and Roshan Lal were perfidiously roped in a false case of narcotics, as they failed to pay the money. The CBI has filed an exhaustive and elaborative status report, which depicts that the petitioner alongwith others committed the crime. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he is the main bigwig, in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses by threatening or inducing them and will try to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from disclosing the facts to the CBI. There is possibility that the petitioner may flee from justice. The bail application has also been opposed on the ground that the petitioner is habitual criminal and many cases have been lodged against him. There is possibility that the petitioner may flee from justice. The bail application has also been opposed on the ground that the petitioner is habitual criminal and many cases have been lodged against him. The CBI sought the dismissal of the bail of the petitioner on the above enumerated factual matrix and grounds. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the CBI and gone through the record, including the status report, carefully. 6. 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 petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if in the event of his arrest, he is enlarged on bail. He has argued that co-accused Ram Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court, so the learned counsel for the petitioner sought that on the ground of parity, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. Conversely, learned Counsel for the CBI has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a felonious act of trying to extort money. He has further argued that the petitioner is the bigwig in the present case and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that the some more cases have been registered against the petitioner and there is possibility that in case he is enlarged on bail, he may thwart justice. The petitioner is resident of Punjab and is habitual offender, so the bail application may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, he is joining the investigation and co-operating in it. The petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that co-accused Ram Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court, so on the basis of principle of parity, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail and the petition be allowed. 8. He has further argued that co-accused Ram Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court, so on the basis of principle of parity, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail and the petition be allowed. 8. Indeed, the principle of parity has exceptions and these exceptions are far and wide. The available record reveals that in the instant case the petitioner is the main bigwig and he played a key role in falsely getting Shri Ravi Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal roped in a case of narcotics. The investigation conducted by the CBI shows that the petitioner was deeply involved in the crime. The facts emerging out of the investigation got lateral support of the witnesses, while their statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This Court has meticulously examined the material, which has come on record, considered the fact that the petitioner is resident of Punjab, involved in many other cases, the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioner, the fact that there is possibility that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, keeping in view his role in the alleged offence and also considering all the ancillary material, which has come on record, and without ornately discussing the same, at this stage, finds that the petitioner cannot be treated with the yardstick of principle of parity. The benefit of principle of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.