Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2031 (HP)

Sachin Kashyap v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-12-28

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail applications have 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 FIRs No. 8, 9 and 12 to 15, under Sections 406 IPC, registered in Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present cases. 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 08.07.2019 police received a complaint from complainant Shri Arun Dhanta wherein it is alleged that in the year 2015 he sold apples in a firm known as KFC, Dhalli, but till date he did not receive any payment. The complainant further alleged that the payment of Rs.4,38,939/- is recoverable. The complainant requested the police for assistance to get his payment released from the aforesaid firm. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that the aforesaid firm was registered in the name of the petitioner. Investigation further revealed that on different dates the petitioner purchased apples from the complainant and total amount of Rs. 4,38,939/- was payable. Out of the total amount the petitioner paid only Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner joined the investigation and divulged that the firm is registered in his name, but his father used to operate it and on 23.08.2019 he died in a road accident. The petitioner further divulged that he does not know about the purchase of apples from the complainant. The petitioner could not produce any records qua the sale purchase of the apples. During further course of investigation it was unearthed that many FIRs have been registered against the said firm and after the death of the father of the petitioner closure reports have been filed in some cases and some FIRs are against the petitioner for similar offence. The petitioner could not produce any records qua the sale purchase of the apples. During further course of investigation it was unearthed that many FIRs have been registered against the said firm and after the death of the father of the petitioner closure reports have been filed in some cases and some FIRs are against the petitioner for similar offence. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner is habitual in usurping the money of innocent people. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his applications be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present cases. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent 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 further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is resident of the place, joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as nothing is to be recovered at his instance, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is habitual in repeating such kind of 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 applications of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and 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 resident of the place, joining and co- operating in the investigation, so the applications be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is resident of the place, joining and co- operating in the investigation, so the applications be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact 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, his custody is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, in case granted and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present are the fit cases 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 petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIRs No. 8, 9 and 12 to 15, under Sections 406 IPC, registered in Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in the above cases, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in each case. 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 petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti.