Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 61 (HP)

Saurabh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-01-07

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 167 of 2018, dated 20.7.2018 under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 2. Status report stands filed. Record has also been produced. 3. Petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2018. As per record produced and status report filed, facts of the case, as per investigation is that one Chintu had caused transfer of an amount of Rs.12,10,151/- on 7.7.2018 in the account of one Mohit, who after withdrawal of Rs.7,10,000/- on 9.7.2018 had handed over Rs.7,10,150/- to Dheeraj and had told that remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- he would be transferring through cheque or bank account and had asked for account number of person in whose account the remaining amount was to be transferred. As per investigation, it has been revealed by the petitioner that Dheeraj had handed over the said amount to Chintu, who in turn had given Rs.50,000/- to Dheeraj. When Dheeraj had objected on the ground that 10% amount was agreed to be paid to him, Chintu on intervention of persons known to him, present on the spot, had handed over Rs.50,000/- to Dheeraj and out of that Dheeraj had handed over Rs.50,000/- to Saurav. According to prosecution, it has further been revealed by the petitioner that his account number was given to Mohit and on 11.7.2018 Mohit had transferred Rs.5,00,000/- in the his account and said amount after withdrawal was handed over by him to Chintu, who in turn had given to him Rs.5,000/- and after arrest of the petitioner, Rs.2600/- has also been recovered from his bed box, whereas he has stated that remaining amount has been spent by him visiting here and there. Chintu, Dheeraj and Rahul Yadav are stated to be absconding. So far as Mohit is concerned, for reasons that at this stage no incriminatory evidence against him has been found, he has not been considered to be an accused. 4. The petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2018 and investigation qua him is complete and challan against him has also been presented in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh on 24.12.2018, which is fixed for further orders on 18.1.2019. 5. 4. The petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2018 and investigation qua him is complete and challan against him has also been presented in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh on 24.12.2018, which is fixed for further orders on 18.1.2019. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that petitioner was having an active role in getting the amount transferred in his account and after withdrawing to utilize it or to hand over the same to his friends/co-accused. It is further submitted that being a resident of another State, possibility of his availability during trial would be difficult. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in conspiracy with the main accused, but has been made a tool by the real offenders and he is ready to furnish local surety to the satisfaction of the Court and also to abide by any conditions imposed upon him by this Court. 6. Without commenting upon the merits of the rival contentions of the parties, keeping in view the nature of alleged role of the petitioner in the commission of offence, it would be appropriate to enlarge him on bail, as his guilt is yet to be established before the trial court. Hence the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, out of which one should be local surety, as submitted by the counsel of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall 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 from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial; (iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected; (v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner; (vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail; (v) that he shall not leave the territory of India without prior information. He shall furnish his temporary and permanent address along with Mobile Number/contact telephone numbers to the Investigating Officer and shall keep informing change in address/Mobile Number/telephone numbers, if any, to the concerned Police Station regularly, during the pendency of the trial. 7. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 8. In case the petitioner violate any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. 9. Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 10. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. 11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.