Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 8 (HP)

Ved Prakash 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. 72 of 2019, dated 16.08.2019, under Section 403 and 407 IPC, registered in Police Station Kumarsain, District 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, on 16.12.2019 Shri Amar Mehta (complainant) made a written complaint to the police wherein he alleged that he is apple dealer and on 10.08.2019, in Truck, having registration No. RJ 04GB-4692, he got loaded 769 boxes of apple, but the said truck did not reach its destination. The complainant apprehended that the driver of the truck, who disclosed his name as Rama Ram, has sold the apple boxes somewhere else. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation commenced. Police took into possession the documents of the vehicle, which were submitted to the complainant by the driver. CCTV footages of the toll barriers were obtained and the CCTV footage of Parwanoo barrier showed that the number plate of the truck was obliterated. Police also found that the number plate of the said truck was replaced. Total estimated cost of the loaded apple boxes is Rs. 7,00,510/- and the truck in question was found to be registered in the name of one Kulwinder Singh, resident of Faridkot, Punjab. Said Kulwinder Singh joined the investigation and divulged that his truck did not come to Himachal, however, the police found that Kulwinder Singh was present at Narkanda, Himachal, on 10.08.2019 and on 11.08.2019 he came to Haryana via Chandi Mandir. Police further found that the truck of Kulwinder Singh was pained with fresh paint and the headlight has also been changed. The chassis number of the truck of Kulwinder Singh was tallied with that of the documents produced by the complainant. The truck was mechanically examined and samples of paint of the truck were sent to scientific analysis. Police further found that the truck of Kulwinder Singh was pained with fresh paint and the headlight has also been changed. The chassis number of the truck of Kulwinder Singh was tallied with that of the documents produced by the complainant. The truck was mechanically examined and samples of paint of the truck were sent to scientific analysis. During the course of further investigation it was found that the truck in question was being driven by one Ved Prakash (petitioner herein) and on 25.11.2019 the petitioner alongwith Kulwinder Singh joined the investigation. The petitioner disclosed that near Barnala Byepass road he transferred the apple boxes in another truck and sold the same for Rs. 3,75,000/-. The petitioner produced Rs. 2,75,000/-, which were taken into possession by the police. As per the petitioner, he spent Rs. 1,00,000/- for EMI of truck, purchased two new tyres and got the truck painted. Police effected the relevant recoveries and recorded the statements of the witnesses. As per the police, the petitioner only deposited Rs. 2,75,000/- and rest of the amount is still to be deposited. The petitioner is not disclosing as to where he got prepared the fake documents of the truck. 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 the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 2,75,000/- with the police. 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 petitioner has already deposited Rs. 2,75,000/- with the police. 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 neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has further argued that co-accused Kulwinder Singh has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The 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 co-accused has already been enlarge on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, 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. 72 of 2019, dated 16.08.2019, under Section 403 and 407 IPC etc. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 72 of 2019, dated 16.08.2019, under Section 403 and 407 IPC etc. registered in Police Station Kumarsain, District 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.