Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1429 (HP)

Kamal Dev v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-09-23

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 6 of 2019, dated 29.07.2019, under Sections 420,467,468,471,120B IPC and Section 13(I)d of PC Act,1988, registered in Police Station SV&ACB, Una, District Una, 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 26.07.2019 police received a Final Inquiry report upon a complaint made by Smt. Daljit Kaur (complainant) to the Managing Director, Kangra Central Co-operative Bank H/Q Dharamshala. In the complaint it is contended by the complainant that in the year 2016 she took loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Kangra Central Co-operative Bank and on 03.07.2017 she visited the bank to deposit money and came to know that Rs. 5888/-, has been debited on 12.04.2017. The Branch Manager disclosed that this amount had been deducted from year account for health insurance, but she neither applied for such insurance nor signed any documents. She alleged that the bank authorities misappropriated the money. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, it was found that one Rahul Chandla (co-accused), employee of Religare Health Insurance Company in connivance with the petitioner, Branch Manager, Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, College Branch, Una, transferred Rs. 5888/- by forging her signatures. It was also found that they also illegally transferred money from the accounts of 23 account holders. So, the police registered a case and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner illegally transferred the money from the accounts of the account holders to Religare Health Insurance Company as premium for Health Insurance. Co-accused Rahul Chandla forged the signatures of account holders and transferred the money to Religare Health Insurance Company. The petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation. Police seized the relevant records. In total Rs. 1,58,272/- was embezzled by the petitioner and the co-accused. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. Co-accused Rahul Chandla forged the signatures of account holders and transferred the money to Religare Health Insurance Company. The petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation. Police seized the relevant records. In total Rs. 1,58,272/- was embezzled by the petitioner and the co-accused. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. Co-accused Rahul Chaandla filed a bail application before he the learned Trial Court and the same is listed for hearing on 27.09.2019. As per the police, investigation in the case is in initial stages. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application 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 has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is joining and cooperating in the investigation. He has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime by embezzling money from the accounts of the account holders, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is an employee of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank and resident of the place. He is neither in a position to flee from justice and nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is an employee of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank and resident of the place. He is neither in a position to flee from justice and nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custody is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is an employee of Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, he is resident of the place, so neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, also considering the fact that he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in case FIR No. 6 of 2019, dated 29.07.2019, under Sections 420,467,468,471,120B IPC and Section 13(I)d of PC Act,1988, registered in Police Station SV & ACB, Una, District Una, H.P., be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) 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 appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.