Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 3 (HP)

Vimal Kalra v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-01-01

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. 05 of 2019, dated 01.11.2019, under Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC, PS SV and 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, Shri Kamal Kishore (complainant) made a written complaint to the police wherein he alleged that he is resident of Panesh, Tehsil and District Shimla. As per the complainant, some people are roaming in the area, who are enticing people of the area to get financed vehicle 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. One Bhajan Lal (co-accused) in connivance with Raman and Sushil Kumar got the complainant financed a vehicle (Innova Crysta) and the same was taken to Haryana and registered at Dera Bassi and when the complainant asked for his vehicle, he was told that the vehicle will be engaged by some company and to this extent an agreement will be executed. When the vehicle was not returned to him, he made a complaint to the police, but no action was taken. Thus, the complainant was cheated for rupees twenty lac. 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 and he has received notice qua those cheques. 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. The complaint has further alleged that some blank cheques, issued by him to the finance company, have now been wrongly used and he has received notice qua those cheques. 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 it was unearthed that the complainant got financed an Innova Crysta from AU Finance Chakkar, Shimla, and the petitioner alongwith Raman Singh and Sushil were involved. During further investigation it was unearthed that these persons also got two more vehicles financed and qua this two FIRs were registered. As per the police investigation, these vehicles were illegally taken by the accused persons, including the petitioner, and intended to sell the same in Haryana. Police procured the sales records of the vehicles from the vehicle show rooms. One vehicle is recovered and two more are yet to be recovered. The petitioner joined the investigation on 17.12.2019 and now he is joining and co-operating in the investigation. The petitioner is hiding the facts and not disclosing about the two vehicles, which are yet to be recovered. The petitioner is also not disclosing about absconding accomplice, Ranjeet Singh. 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Senior 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 the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the bail application be allowed. 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 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and 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 co-operating in the investigation, 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 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. 05 of 2019, dated 01.11.2019, under Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC, PS SV and ACB, Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 05 of 2019, dated 01.11.2019, under Section 420, 406 and 120B IPC, PS SV and 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.