Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1850 (HP)

Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-12-04

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. 34 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered in Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, 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 sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the police report, Smt. Promila, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bhadarnu (complainant), got her statement recorded with the police, wherein she stated that w.e.f. 22.01.2010 to 15.02.2010 NSFDC started imparting training of fruit process to the women of scheduled caste at Bhadarnu and Rs. 5000/- was to be paid as skill development allowance to each participant women. She has further stated that they also filed their documents and they were told that the duration of training is two months, but training was imparted for only 18 days. 25 women participated in the training imparted by Himachal Consultancy Organization Ltd. for which cheques of Rs. 2000/- were given to them and remaining Rs. 3000/- was to be paid, which was not paid. Subsequently, she came to know that Himachal Consultancy Organization depicted that the training w.e.f. 16.11.2013 to 15.01.2014 has been imparted at Karsog. However, no such training programme was conducted and only the names of women, who have earlier participated in the training, were reflected. As per the complainant, they were not paid their remaining Rs. 3000/- and thus they were cheated. Upon the statement of the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police procured the relevant records. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that HIMCON depicted organizing training during the year 2013/14, in which 25 women were imparted training, whereas in 2013/14 no training was imparted to 25 women and the officials/officers of HIMCON withdrew money, through different cheques, from Punjab National Bank. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. In 2013 NSCFDC allotted a training programme to HIMCON Consultancy for fruit processing. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. In 2013 NSCFDC allotted a training programme to HIMCON Consultancy for fruit processing. The investigation further revealed that the officials/officers of HIMCON Consultancy did not supervise the training programme and no such training in the year 2013/14 was imparted. The petitioner, who is Chief Manager of HIMCON Consultancy and one V.N. Rathore, District Manager, SC&ST, District Solan, did not supervise/check fruit processing training at Karsog and only depicted different expenses qua the said training. NSCFDC, Delhi, directly sent the money in the account of HIMCON and the petitioner, in connivance with others, prepared a fake list of women participants in the training programme. As per the police, the petitioner, upon the direction of this Hon''ble Court is joining and co-operating in the investigation. The petitioner revealed that during the year 2013/14 he was working as Chief Manager, HIMCON Organization Ltd. and one Suresh Kumar Arora, who was working on out source basis as Assistant Manager prepared a fake list of 24 girls and a boy and he (petitioner) only signed it cursorily in routine. As per the police, the petitioner is hiding the facts and he seems to be very clever person. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was 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, as he is resident of Varanasi, U.P. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, as he is very clever person, so his application be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy 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. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation. 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 sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has argued that in fact the petitioner cursorily appended his signatures in routine and the fake list of participants was prepared by one Suresh Kumar Arora, who was working as Assistant Manager on out source basis, so the petitioner be enlarged on bail. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and cooperating in the investigation, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, 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 neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is an employee and joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is an employee and 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 joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and his role, which has come in the police investigation, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case he is granted bail, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and cooperating in the investigation and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and the fact that the petitioner is an employee, 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 the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 34 of 2017, dated 28.03.2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered in Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, 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. Copy dasti.