Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 567 (HP)

Jagdeep Rana v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-09-04

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. 171 of 2019, dated 20.10.2019, under Sections 420, 406, 408, 409, 120B IPC and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, registered in Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, 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 resident of the place 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 26.10.2019 the police of Police Station Dehra was directed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, upon an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. maintained by The Chanaur Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. through Shri Lachhman Singh, President, (hereinafter to as "the complainant"), to inquire and investigate the matter against Jagdeep Rana (petitioner herein). As per the allegations imputed in the complaint the petitioner is Director of Dev Bhoomi Associated Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO-16, Ground Floor, Sector-1, Grain Market, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and deals in general order supplier, electrical, hardware, household items etc. During the year 2017, the petitioner had affable relations with one Devinder Kumar, Secretary of Chanaur Co-operative Agriculture Society (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Society"), who used to perform all the financial transactions on behalf of the Society. Said Devinder Kumar purchased water purifiers from the petitioner and on 28.02.2017 the petitioner, on payment of month rent of Rs. 7000/-, became tenant of the Society and he occupied second/top floor in the premises of the Society. The petitioner paid annual rent of Rs. 84000/- in advance and started running his business of water purifiers from the tenanted premises. As per the allegations, on different dates water purifiers were purchased by the Society from the petitioner, but resolutions qua purchase of these purifiers were passed on subsequent dates. The petitioner paid annual rent of Rs. 84000/- in advance and started running his business of water purifiers from the tenanted premises. As per the allegations, on different dates water purifiers were purchased by the Society from the petitioner, but resolutions qua purchase of these purifiers were passed on subsequent dates. It is further alleged that the petitioner in connivance with Secretary Devender Kumar sold the water purifiers to the Society on a much higher rate. The Society received complaints qua the water purifiers and on being technically/mechanically examined by the Assistant Engineer I&PH, Sub Division Dada Siba, Tehsil Dada Siba, Kangra, alongwith Service Engineer, Kent RO System, many vital parts of the purifiers were found missing. On random mechanical examination of the purifiers, many purifiers were found defective. The petitioner by supplying water purifiers on higher rates and with defects deliberately cheated the Society with intent to cause wrongful gain to himself. As per the allegations of the Society, cumulatively the petitioner has caused loss to the Society to the tune of Rs. 2,54,43,000/- (rupees two crore fifty four thousand forty three thousand). During the audit, it was unearthed that Devender Kumar, Secretary of the Society, connived with the petitioner. On 23.03.2019 a legal notice was sent to the petitioner apprising him qua his illegal acts and also to return the defective water purifiers, but the petitioner, in turn, gave evasive reply to the same. On 26.04.2019 the society made a written complaint against the petitioner in the concerned police station, where the petitioner was summoned, but nothing was done. The petitioner took eight purifiers back @ Rs. 7000/- each, instead of Rs. 11200/- each. Qua the returned purifiers, the petitioner issued a cheque to the tune of Rs. 56,000/-, but on being presented before the Bank, the same dishonored with endorsement 'signature differs'. Despite best efforts, no action was taken against the petitioner, so the Society filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., whereupon a case was ordered to be registered against the petitioner. Police, on being directed by the Court, registered a case against the petitioner and investigation ensued. Police procured all the relevant records qua the sale purchase of the purifiers. A Technical Committee inspected all the purifiers and found that all the water purifers are assembled of different labels and purification categories. On 02.01.2018 co-accused Devender Kumar has expired. Police, on being directed by the Court, registered a case against the petitioner and investigation ensued. Police procured all the relevant records qua the sale purchase of the purifiers. A Technical Committee inspected all the purifiers and found that all the water purifers are assembled of different labels and purification categories. On 02.01.2018 co-accused Devender Kumar has expired. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that said purchase of purifiers was made without any prior common meeting of the Society and to this extent apt proceedings have been initiated. As per the police, during the course of investigation, no case under Sections 420, 406 408, 409, 120B IPC & Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against the petitioner. In fact, one Laxman Singh, President of the Society, in order to save his skin from pending proceedings under Section 69(1) of Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, got initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. As per the police, on 26.08.2020 cancellation report has been presented, qua the instant case, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that the petitioner is joining and cooperating in the investigation no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. As per the police investigation, no case is made out against the petitioner and the police have already filed cancellation report in the learned Trial Court. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner may have hand in glove in the allege offence, so the bail application may 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 the place. 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 the place. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, 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 after giving thoughtful and incisive consideration to the facts 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, as he is permanent resident of the place, his custody is not at all required by the police, the fact that nothing has come out against the petitioner in the police investigation, 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, considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed 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. 171 of 2019, dated 20.10.2019, under Sections 420, 406, 408, 409, 120B IPC and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, registered in Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty 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. 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. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.