Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 590 (HP)

Deepak Sharma v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-14

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking their release in case FIR No. 65 of 2018, dated 28.05.2018, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 IPC, Police Station Ramur, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of NCR Delhi, 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 them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 28.05.2018 Shri Desh Lal Gautam (complainant) moved a complaint to the police and alleged that one Diksha Bhatnagar made him to invest money and the said investment, as on 25.08.2015, became Rs. 58,79,340/-. Thereafter, one Kunal Malhotra used to telephone him and he informed that in a car accident Diksha Bhatnagar had expired. He further told the complainant that he can get released the fund to him. However, when he was contacted said Kunal Malhotra told that due to non tax clearance, fund could not be released. Thereafter Kunal Malhotra told him to deposit rupees six lac eighty one thousand. On noticing the topsy-turvy behaviour of Kunal Malhotra, the complainant moved the complaint to the police. Police on receipt of complaint, registered FIR and investigation ensued. 4. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. It was unearthed during the course of investigation that on the persuasions of Diksha Bhatnagar the complainant stopped paying premiums of some insurance policies and he surrendered some of the policies. Thereafter, Diksha Bhatnagar made the complainant to invest his funds and she did not give any document for such investment. Diksha Bhatnagar made the complainant to talk with one Kunal Malhotra, who later on told him that Diksha Bhatnagar expired in an accident. The complainant on the asking of said Kunal Malhota deposited money not only in his account, but in others accounts. Thereafter, one Sodhi Singh telephoned him and disclosed that he is Income Tax Officer. He further divulged to the complainant that his file of Income Tax Department is being cleared and he demanded Rs. The complainant on the asking of said Kunal Malhota deposited money not only in his account, but in others accounts. Thereafter, one Sodhi Singh telephoned him and disclosed that he is Income Tax Officer. He further divulged to the complainant that his file of Income Tax Department is being cleared and he demanded Rs. 3,62,000/- for such clearance. During the course of investigation police arrested one Praveen Kumar, who divulged that he opened four bank accounts on in the ID of one Promod Kumar and for each bank account he was paid Rs. 30,000/-. 5. He has further divulged that the Guruvachan Sharma, Dushyant Kumar, Deepika Thakur and Deepak Sharma have purchased many SIM cards and he heard them talking to the complainant many times. Accused Praveen Kumar divulged that the other accused persons used to live in Noida and he can identify them. He led the police party to Noida and got arrested the accused persons, including the present petitioners. In the investigation it is revealed that the petitioners and the accused persons planned cheating and they cheated Rs. 72,00,000/-from the complainant. It was also unearthed that accused Guruvachan Sharma used to spend the whole amount of cheating and he used to give some amount to the other accused persons. Police made the relevant recoveries, viz., five mobile phones, one laptop and two pen drives. Accused Guruvachan Singh also purchased two flats and three plots on his and on the name of his brother Dushyant Kumar. 6. The accused persons used to destroy the SIM card after using the same for 3-4 months. Till now accused Guruvachan Sharma deposited only Rs. 50,000/- in the bank account of the complainant. As per the police, investigation in the matter is still going on. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed as the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and in case they are enlarged on bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioners are very clever and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may jump over the bail. Therefore, their bail applications of may be dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 7. The petitioners are very clever and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may jump over the bail. Therefore, their bail applications of may be dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in serious offence and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioners are very clever persons and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice and may also tamper with the prosecution evidence. So, at this stage, the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 8. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are residents of the place, so they may be enlarged on bail. 9. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioners were found involved in a serious office of cheating whereby they had deputed the complainant and cheated him for huge amount by misrepresentations, there are chances that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice and also considering all other 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 petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Therefore, the petitions, which are devoid of merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.