Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 533 (HP)

Yashpal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-27

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 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 107 of 2019, dated 22.04.2019, under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Sadar Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh 3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and 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. 4. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 22.04.2019 Shri Bhanu (complainant) made a written complaint to the police wherein he alleged that during the month of October, 2018, Yashpal (petitioner herein) met him in Irawati Hotel. The petitioner managed to convince the complainant that he would provide job to him. The complainant paid Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) in cash to the petitioner and it was agreed that the petitioner would provide Aadhar Kit, but he did not provide the same. Later on, the petitioner asked the complainant to work at Bhadram Branch, so w.e.f. December, 2018 to March, 2019, he worked there for Rs. 12,000/- per month. As per the complainant, the petitioner neither provided job to him nor paid his salary. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the petitioner has cheated approximately one hundred persons on the pretext of providing jobs. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, police visited the spot, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. It has further come in the investigation that the petitioner has cheated approximately one hundred persons. Initially the petitioner joined the investigation, but, later on, he did not join the same. As per the latest police report, the petitioner is neither joining the investigation, nor returning the money usurped by him. It has further come in the investigation that the petitioner has cheated approximately one hundred persons. Initially the petitioner joined the investigation, but, later on, he did not join the same. As per the latest police report, the petitioner is neither joining the investigation, nor returning the money usurped by him. 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 not joining the investigation and co-operating in it and also not returning the money to the persons cheated by him. 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 bail application be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, 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 permanent resident of District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and 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 sending the petitioner behind the bars. The petitioner is ready and willing to join and co-operate 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 and despite the orders of the Court, he is not joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has further argued that he has cheated many innocent persons and usurped their hard earned money and now, despite sufficient time, he is not returning the money to them, 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. 7. 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 is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as he is permanent resident of District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is ready and willing to join the investigation and co-operate in it, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, after considering the different facets of the case in hand and giving thoughtful and incisive consideration to the facts that the petitioner, despite the orders of this Court did not join the investigation on many occasions and thus he is not co-operating with the investigating agency, considering the fact that he has ample time to return the money to the persons cheated by him, but, seemingly, he did not even endeavor to do the same and, in fact, the petitioner is taking off beam advantage of the interim bail granted to him by this Court, vide its order dated 29.05.2019. This Court also considers the huge amount usurped by the petitioner, the fact that he has cheated innocent people and now, despite the shackles of law, he is not joining and co-operating in the investigation and circumventing the same with one or another method. There is possibility that in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may also flee from justice, the fact that huge amount of money is yet to be recovered from him, his custodial interrogation is required by the police, as he is not 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 is not to be exercised. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court, vide its order dated 29.05.2019, stands cancelled. 10. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Interim bail granted to the petitioner by this Court, vide its order dated 29.05.2019, stands cancelled. 10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove, as only confined to this case and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case, which is yet to be filed in the learned trial Court.