Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 170 (HP)

Aman @ Raman v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-02-26

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 04 of 2019, dated 01.10.2019, under Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC, PS SV & ACB, 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 sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 02.10.2019 police received a complaint against the petitioner and others wherein the complainant alleged that some people used to entice people of the area to get financed vehicles and the vehicle will be engaged in companies at Punjab and Haryana. As per the complainant, he has also been cheated by the accused person and the petitioner. Police inquired into the matter and found that some people used to get financed vehicles from Cholamandlam Finance Company on the names of persons, who were enticed that their vehicles would be engaged by companies and they would be paid handsomely. It was further found that vehicles were never delivered to the true owners and the persons involved used to sell these vehicles in Punjab and Haryana. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, police seized the relevant records qua the vehicle in question. Police found the involvement of the accused persons, including the petitioner in the commission of the crime. Co-accused Vimal Kalra @ Sukhbir and Pradeep have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is joining the investigation, but he is not revealing the truth. One of the co-accused Ranjeet Singh Kang is yet to be arrested. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, he is very clever person. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed. 4. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application 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 has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has argued that accused Vimal Kalra has already been enlarged on bail and the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and cooperating in the investigation and main accused Vimal Kalra has already been enlarged on bail, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and cooperating in the investigation and main accused Vimal Kalra has already been enlarged on bail, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, his custody is not at all required by the police, considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, co-accused Vimal Kalra has already been enlarged on bail and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, 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. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 04 of 2019, dated 01.10.2019, under Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC, PS SV & ACB, Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) 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 appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.