Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 615 (HP)

Gautam Seth v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-22

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking his release in case FIR No. 8, dated 03.04.2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 217, 218, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, and FIR No. 9 of 2016, dated 03.04.2016, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 406, 409, 411, 201, 217, 218, 120B IPC, 13(1)(C), 13(1)(D)(II) of PC Act, registered in Police Station State CID, Bharari, Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, 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. The petitioner was Chief Finance Officer of the company and Accounts and Finance departments were under his control. The petitioner was single signatory in Delhi Head Office of the company. The company decided to pay the electricity bills through RTGS. During the course of investigation, it is unearthed that one Anuj Sharma and others on the directions of the petitioner used to prepare RTGS vouchers and fake RTGS details and UTR numbers were mentioned. Later on fake RTGS were used to get stamped from the concerned bank. Thereafter, fake documents were used to be emailed to ITCOL Plant Paonta and fake RTGS details and UTR numbers were dictated on phone. Later on fake RTGS were used to get stamped from the concerned bank. Thereafter, fake documents were used to be emailed to ITCOL Plant Paonta and fake RTGS details and UTR numbers were dictated on phone. Fake RTGS details and UTR numbers were sent to Sub Division Dhaula Kaun. State CID investigated the matter and recorded the statements of the witnesses and also prepared the spot map. At this stage, without discussing the whole gamut of the matter in detail, as per the police, the petitioner w.e.f. December, 2012, to January, 2015, remained company Secretary and Chief Finance Officer of the company. The petitioner prepared minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors/Annual General Meetings and in fact those meetings were not organized. The police also found the involvement of the petitioner in removing the scrap, raw material, furnace oil etc. As per the police, the main accused Rakesh Sharma is yet to be arrested and the petitioner in still in touch with him. The petitioner is resident of Ghaziabad, 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 during his stint the offences took place and the petitioner played important role in the commission of the offences, so at this stage the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and during his stint the offences took place and the petitioner played important role in the commission of the offences, 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. 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 as Secretary and Chief Finance Officer 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.