Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2034 (HP)

Gian Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-12-30

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. 90 of 2019, dated 07.11.2019, under Section 379, 120B and 201 IPC, registered in Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, 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 permanent resident of District Shimla 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 07.11.2019 Shri Deepak Sharma (complainant) made a written complaint to the police, wherein he alleged that he was awarded a contract of laying water pipes from Bhurshing Mahadev to Naina Tikkar. He has further alleged that on 18.09.2019 he got loaded 120 GI pipes, each 5" from the godown of I&PH, Nahan, in a vehicle and transported the same to Naina Tikkar. He stacked the said pipes near Charani Ghat, Naina Tikkar. The complainant, due to election code of conduct, could not start the work and the pipes remained their. On 22.10.2019 Junior Engineer of I&PH Department informed that the pipes have been stolen by someone. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation commenced. Police visited the spot and found 3 GI pipes. Police obtained CCTV footage of different places, which showed involvement of Truck No. HP69A-6095, in transporting the said pipes and the said truck is owned by co-accused Vishal Kaushal, who is Junk Dealer. The said truck was being driven by driver Ravinder and on 09.11.2019 he was arrested. Upon the identification of the driver, 117 GI pipes of 5" were recovered from Majri Mandi, Gobindgarh. On 10.11.2019 co-accused Vishal Kausal was also arrested by the police. Police effected the relevant recoveries, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Accused Vishal Kausal and Ravinder were enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. Police obtained the call details of the accused persons and found the involvement of Gian Singh (petitioner herein) and Prakash Chand. Police effected the relevant recoveries, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Accused Vishal Kausal and Ravinder were enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. Police obtained the call details of the accused persons and found the involvement of Gian Singh (petitioner herein) and Prakash Chand. On 09.12.2019 co-accused Prakash Chand was enlarged on bail and during the course of interrogation, he divulged that the vehicle, having registration No. HR 51AV-2521, which was allegedly used in the commission of the crime, was owned by one Shankar Lal, who sold the same to someone. In 2015 the petitioner purchased the said vehicle and got it registered in the name of his bhabhi. The petitioner got the vehicle registered in Himachal Pradesh and presently the registered owner of the said car is Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Prakash Chand. The police found that the accused persons changed the number plates of the vehicle, which was allegedly used in escorting the truck loaded with GI pipes. The police also found that the petitioner purchased an Alto K10 car in 2016 and till now he did not register the same and he plies the vehicle on a fake number plate, i.e., HR51AV-2521 and on 26.12.2019 his vehicle was found to be escorting the truck, which was involved in the theft of the GI pipes. As per the police, the petitioner is not disclosing the truth and many criminal cases have been registered against him. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, he is very clever person. 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 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. 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 further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is permanent resident of District Shimla and 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 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 permanent resident of District Shimla 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 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 resident of the place 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 role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the fact that recovery of all the GI pipes have already been effected, 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, considering the allegations, which have come on record, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, 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, 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. 90 of 2019, dated 07.11.2019, under Section 379, 120B and 201 IPC, registered in Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, 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. 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.