Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 310 (HP)

Aarti v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-06-05

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matter is taken up through video conference. 2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking her release in case FIR No. 193 of2019, dated 05.12.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. 3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She 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 her behind the bars for an unlimited period, so she be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 05.12.2019 Shri Kartar Singh (complainant) made a written complaint to the police wherein he contended that he has been cheated by Prachi Aggarwal, Rahul Dixit and Manikant on the pretext of grant of dividend on insurance policy and in total an amount of Rs. 16,36,000/- (rupees sixteen lac thirty six thousand) has been illegally usurped. The complainant, who is 85 years old, mentioned mobile numbers of the above persons. As per the complainant, Rahul Dixit telephonically called him and asked to deposit money for reviving the insurance policy purchased by the complainant. Later on, the complainant was informed that the company has earned profit of two thousand crore and now dividend is to be disbursed. The complainant also received two cheques of Rs. 6,15,000/- and 5,42,625/-, which are of Induslnd Bank, Noida, Uttar Pradesh and these cheques were signed by one Manikant, but when these cheques were presented for encashment, the bank authorities informed the complainant that the drawer has stopped the payment of the cheques. The complainant was telephonically informed that Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha has expired and Smt. Manni Bai Naidu has been hospitalized and initially the complainant was informed that both Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha and Smt. Kanni Bai Naidu were in the panel for disbursing dividend. The complainant was further informed that total Rs. 19,88,000/- is to be paid, but the payment has been stopped and in case he wants timely payment then he has to deposit Rs. 6,50,500/-. Consequently, on different dates through one Prachi total amount of Rs. The complainant was further informed that total Rs. 19,88,000/- is to be paid, but the payment has been stopped and in case he wants timely payment then he has to deposit Rs. 6,50,500/-. Consequently, on different dates through one Prachi total amount of Rs. 16,36,000/- was transferred in the account of Manikant and later on contact from said Prachi was broken by the culprits. The complainant was cheated for Rs. 16,36,000/-. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and procured the relevant records. On 11.01.2020 accused Manikant was arrested and from him relevant recoveries were made. During the course of further investigation it was unearthed that accused Manikant alongwith his wife Aarti (petitioner herein) was in contact with the complainant. Accused Manikant portrayed himself as Rahul Dixit and the petitioner portrayed herself as Prachi Aggarwal. It has also come in the investigation that accused Manikant and Aarti connived and planned to illegally usurp the money of the complainant. On 05.02.2020 the petitioner was arrested. The documents sent by accused Manikant to the complainant were found to be fake. It has also come in the investigation that both the accused and the petitioner were involved in cheating the people and the complainant fell prey to their trap. Accused Manikant has destroyed his mobile phone. The investigation reveals that both the accused and the petitioner planned to cheat the complainant and they also succeeded in doing so. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the learned Trial Court on 14.04.2020. An I20 car, which has been purchased by the accused from the money of the complainant, has been taken into possession by the police. As per the police, investigation and interrogation in the case is pending during the pandemic of novel Corona Virus and report of forensic analysis is also awaited. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and there is every possibility that in case at this stage she is enlarged on bail, she may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, as she is resident of Uttar Pradesh. 5. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and there is every possibility that in case at this stage she is enlarged on bail, she may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, as she is resident of Uttar Pradesh. 5. 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. 6. 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 argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and in the wake of the fact that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and her custody is not at all required by the police. So, the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case, at this stage, she is enlarged on bail, she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as she is resident of Uttar Pradesh. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and in the wake of the fact that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and her custody is not at all required by the police, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. 8. At this stage, considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact that now challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, her custody is not at all required by the police, the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and she is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in her favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 193 of 2019, dated 05.12.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 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 the territory of Himachal Pradesh without prior permission of the learned Trial 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. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.