Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 454 (HP)

Tek Chand v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-04-24

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 237 of 2018, dated 28.09.2018, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B 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, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 28.09.2019 police received a complaint from Himachal Pradesh Beverages Limited (HPBL). It is contended in the complaint that during the year 2016-17 HPBL sold liquor amounting to Rs. 543.59 crore and when chartered accounts checked the accounts it was found that payment of Rs.11,47,50,291/- (rupees eleven crore forty seven lac fifty thousand two hundred ninety one) has not been received by HPBL. Inquiry further revealed that different licensees did not deposit the amount. Thereafter, HPBL constituted an internal committee to probe the matter. The said committee found that the licensees have either reused one UTR (Unique Transaction Reference) issued by the Bank for procuring stock of liquor from more than one Depot or have tempered with the UTRs/HPBL account and while doing so they have committed forgery and cheating knowingly that spent UTRs would induce the HPBL Depot Manager to release stock in their favour again to which they were not entitled for. Upon the complaint, police registered a case and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation police found the involvement of the petitioner, who was posted in Depot Bajuri, District Hamirpur, H.P. The petitioner was instrumental in making liquor available to licencee Ankush Rana without any payment and verification. The action of the petitioner resulted into financial loss to HPBL. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statements of the witnesses and relevant record was taken into possession. Challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. The action of the petitioner resulted into financial loss to HPBL. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statements of the witnesses and relevant record was taken into possession. Challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the application may 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 report of the police, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the main accused have been enlarged on bail, so the application be allowed may also be enlarged on bail. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence and the fact that main accused have already been enlarged on bail and also the overall aspects of the case 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, as he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 237 of 2018, dated 28.09.2018, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) 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 join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.