Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 171 (HP)

Aman @ Raman v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-02-26

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. (Oral) - 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. 07 of 2019, dated 02.10.2019, under Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC, PS SV & ACB, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 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 are roaming in the area, who are enticing people of the area to get financed vehicles and the vehicle will be engaged in companies at Punjab and Haryana. These people are cheating the innocent people of the area and they get the vehicles financed from different finance companies. The complainant has further alleged that during December, 2018, accused Sube Singh alongwith Raman and Susheel met him at Solan market and they told him that they can get engaged his vehicle in a company and monthly income would be around thirty to forty thousand. These persons further told him that vehicle would be financed by their company and margin money will also be paid by the company. The complainant sent his relevant documents and on 13.01.2019 he received a telephonic call that his loan is approved by the company, when the complainant refused for the deal the above persons asked to pay Rs.25,000/- as processing fee. On 13.01.2019 at about 06:30 p.m. the vehicle was delivered and the petitioner alongwith others took the vehicle to get the same engaged in a company. The complainant was paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) for initial equated monthly installments, which he deposited in Cholamandlam Finance Company. It was agreed to enter into an agreement later. During the subsequent week he was made to sign on certain documents and agreement was agreed to be executed in Solan Court. The complainant was paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) for initial equated monthly installments, which he deposited in Cholamandlam Finance Company. It was agreed to enter into an agreement later. During the subsequent week he was made to sign on certain documents and agreement was agreed to be executed in Solan Court. Later on, the complainant came to know that some persons are deceitfully operating in getting the vehicles financed and they allure the people to get their vehicles engaged in companies. Despite repeated requests no agreement was executed and when he went to RLA (Registering and Licensing Authority), Solan, for registration for his vehicle, he came to know that his vehicle has already been registered in Punjab. The complainant has further alleged that the finance company is also involved with the accused persons and he is being pressurized not to complain the matter to the police. The complaint has further alleged that some blank cheques, issued by him to the finance company, have now been wrongly used. The complainant apprehends that his vehicle may also be used in some criminal act. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation police found the allegations leveled by the complainant true against Sube Singh, Raman @ Aman (petitioner herein), Susheel, Ranjeet Singh Kang, Hardeep Brar, Sukhvir @ Vimal Kalra and Rakesh. Police procured the relevant records qua the vehicle and vehicle was traced in Parwanoo and it was found to be driven by one Amit Kumar @ Susheel. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that the accused persons, including the petitioner, are involved in such illegal activities and they used to cheat people. Upon the identification of accused Vimal Kalra police recovered two vehicles from his possession. Police found that accused Vimal Kalra used to sell the vehicles to people and vehicles were being supplied to him by the other accused persons. As per the police, six vehicles have been recovered and three are yet to be recovered. One of the accused, Ranjeet Singh Kang is yet to be arrested and the petitioner absconded to evade his arrest. 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. One of the accused, Ranjeet Singh Kang is yet to be arrested and the petitioner absconded to evade his arrest. 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. 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. 07 of 2019, dated 02.10.2019, 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. Copy dasti.