Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 614 (HP)

Rajt Kumar Garg v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-22

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 9, dated 03.04.2016, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 406, 409, 411, 201, 217, 218, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(I)(D)(II) of PC Act, registered in Police Station State CID, Bharari, Shimla, 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. Tersely, as per the prosecution story, Indian Technomac Company depicted high production in order to get loans from the banks and for this the company also prepared the fake documents. Cumulatively, loan liability and tax on the company comes to Rs. 2100 crore, which the company failed to deposit. The State Government suffered huge loses due to the acts of the company and thus the assets of the company were attached. However, the management of the company with the help and assistance of employees of the office of Excise and Taxation Department, Paonta Sahib and other departments stealthily removed the scrap of the company. Police intercepted a truck of scrap and during the course of investigation it was found that the management of the company was involved in such activities. It was also unearthed during the course of investigation that some of the goods vehicles, which were shown to have transported the manufactured goods of the company, were found not to have transported the same. The officials/officers of the said company, who were instrumental in the commission of the crime, were arrested. The petitioner was working in the Accounts Department of the said company and he prepared the fake bills, so he was arrested on 27.05.2019. As per the police, for preparing fake purchase bills a list of suppliers was being daily supplied to the petitioner and after preparing the fake bills, the petitioner used to tally the same and feed them in the software. The petitioner also prepared fake scrap bills. As per the police, for preparing fake purchase bills a list of suppliers was being daily supplied to the petitioner and after preparing the fake bills, the petitioner used to tally the same and feed them in the software. The petitioner also prepared fake scrap bills. The police also found the involvement of the petitioner in removing the scrap, raw material, furnace oil etc. Police completed the investigation and presented supplementary challan in the learned Trail Court against the petitioner and accused Gautam Seth, Shailender Nath, Aran Ahuja and absconding accused Rakesh Sharma. The report qua handwriting of the petitioner is awaited from SFSL, Junga. As per the police, the main accused Rakesh Sharma is yet to be arrested and the petitioner played an active role in the commission of the offence. The petitioner is resident of U.P., and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner 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 police report, 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, so he may be released on bail. He has attracted attention of this Court to decisions of this Court as well as that of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, wherein bails were granted in the same case. On the premise of those decisions the learned counsel has argued that on the basis of parity, the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and he played a key role in the commission of the offence, as he prepared the fake purchase bills and also prepared fake scrap bills and also fed the same in the software, so at this stage the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, 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. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, is mainly seeking bail on the premise of parity, as some of the accused persons, who are involved in the case, have already been released on bail. Indeed the principle of parity is not without exceptions. As per the police, many persons (accused) are involved in the offence and it has come during the course of investigation that the petitioner remained in the Accounts Department of the defaulting company. During the stint of the petitioner the alleged offences took place and the petitioner worked actively for causing illegal gains to the company and illegal losses to the public exchequer. Thus, at this stage, keeping in view the role of the petitioner in the alleged offences, the petitioner does not deserve to be treated equally, hence the principle of parity has no application in the present set of circumstances. 7. At this stage, considering the facts that huge loss is caused to public exchequer and the same is yet to be recovered from the defaulting company, the role of the petitioner in the alleged offences, the manner in which the alleged offences have been committed, the fact that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice and also the fact that the petitioner is in touch with the main accused, who has absconded, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. The bail applications, which are without merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.