Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1547 (HP)

Mohinder Bansal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-10-21

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 51 of 2016, dated 07.02.2016, under Sections 406, 420 and 120 IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 27.02.2016 Shri Mansa Ram (complainant) made a written complaint to the police and alleged that in the year 2014 the petitioner allured of 18% interest on the investment in company, namely, Blue Grass Company, which was of the petitioner. The said company had its branch in Hamirpur. The people were allured and promised exorbitant rate of interest. As per the complainant, the petitioner and others used to come to Hamirpur and urge for more investment in the company. On the asking of the petitioner, he invested Rs.11,50,000/- in the said company and for seven months he was paid interest. After seven months, the company stopped payment of interest, so he wrote to the President of the company as he was in need of rupees eight lac. The complainant was assured that within 30 days he will get the money, but he was not paid. Likewise, the said company ditched other people also and after winding up office at Panchkula these people fled away. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, the police registered a case and the investigation ensued. It was unearthed that the petitioner opened company, namely Blue World Corporation and six other companies and their offices were at Hamirpur. The petitioner used to allure people by portraying that the company would pay attractive interests on their investments, so many people opened their accounts. It has also come in the police investigation that for some months the company paid interests, but then stopped paying the interests. As the investigation proceeded, police came to know about the petitioner, who after winding up the company absconded. It has also come in the police investigation that for some months the company paid interests, but then stopped paying the interests. As the investigation proceeded, police came to know about the petitioner, who after winding up the company absconded. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police found that one Amit Verma, resident of Punjab, was partner in the said company. Said Amit Verma had been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble High Court on 30.11.2016. Police extensively interrogated Amit Verma, so the petitioner and Anju Bansal were tracked down. Police made the relevant recoveries of records from Gujarat situated office of the said company. Police found the involvement of one Himanshu Bansal in the offence and the investigation revealed that Anju Bansal was also associated with the said company. The petitioner and Anju Bansal have fled and they did not deposit Rs. one crore eighty five lac, which was deposited by the investors in the said company. Police made recoveries of records and on 26.07.2018 challan was presented in the Court against the petitioner and Anju Bansal. As per the police, the petitioner evaded his arrest for two years and now he has been arrested. On 10.10.2018 the Hon'ble High Court allowed the bail application of co-accused Anju Bansal. As per the police, in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may leave the India. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as he cheated the innocent people and rupees one crore and eighty five lac is recoverable from him. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may leave India and may also tamper with the prosecution evidence. He is resident of Gujrat and likely to thwart justice in case enlarged on bail, so the 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 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 has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that 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 no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner evaded his arrest for two years and he fled away. An amount of rupees one crore eighty five lac is recoverable from the petitioner and he is resident of Gujarat and is in a position to flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in case enlarged on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner has cheated the innocent people by alluring them with attractive and exorbitant interest on their investments, so he has committed a serious office. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner evaded his arrest for two years and he remained absconded, he is resident of Gujrat and in case he enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, considering the huge amount involved in the instant case, there is possibility that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may leave India 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 is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 8. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to move to appropriate Court at the appropriate stage for bail, in case so required.