Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 754 (HP)

Sagar Chawla v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2022-11-25

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 07 of 2021, dated 15.07.2021, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC, registered at Police Station, CID Bharari, District Shimla, H.P. He was admitted to interim bail on 09.09.2022, whereafter he has joined the investigation. 2. On 07.06.2021, the complainant Sh. Manjeet Verma made a written complaint alleging inter-alia that since 2019 the petitioner is operating a whole-sale business of fruit merchant with his father Sh. Mohan Chawla at Panchkulla under the name and style of “M/s New Guru Nanak Vegetable Company.” The two local agents namely Sh. Hukam Chand Mehta and Sh. Kapil Chauhan were deployed by the petitioner in the area to which complainant belonged. On the request of petitioner, many fruit growers sold their apple crop to M/s New Guru Nanak Vegetable Company, but they did not receive the sale proceeds. When the petitioner was contacted telephonically, he abused the fruit growers and threatened them of life. It was alleged that in this manner the petitioner had duped a number of fruit growers and had not paid them sale proceeds worth about Rs. 1,71,26,246/-. On such complaint, the case was registered on 15.07.2021 at Police Station, CID Bharari, Shimla. 3. The status report filed on behalf of the respondent reveals that after investigation, it has been found that the petitioner had purchased apple crop worth Rs. 1,61,31,718/- from 49 apple growers in the year 2019 and a sum of Rs. 1,30,93,825/- was still due and payable to them. 4. On the other hand, petitioner has submitted that approximately Rs. 3.00 Crores have been paid by M/s New Guru Nanak Vegetable Company to various fruit growers. As per petitioner, he has no concern with the proprietary firm M/s New Guru Nanak Vegetable Company. Petitioner is stated to be carrying his business from SCF No. 16, Sabzi Mandi, Sector 26, Chandigarh as Manager of the firm M/s New Jalandhar Fruit Company owned by his grand-mother Smt. Usha Chawla. The involvement of petitioner in the instant FIR is stated to be without any reason. Petitioner has claimed himself to be innocent. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has permanent abode in Chandigarh and has roots in the society. Petitioner has undertaken not to flee from course of justice. The involvement of petitioner in the instant FIR is stated to be without any reason. Petitioner has claimed himself to be innocent. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has permanent abode in Chandigarh and has roots in the society. Petitioner has undertaken not to flee from course of justice. He has further undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. At the time of hearing, the prayer for grant of bail has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that huge amount is due to be recovered from him. His custodial interrogation has been sought for the said purpose. 7. As evident from the facts coming forth from investigation record, the allegation against petitioner is that he has failed to pay back the price of apple crop to the fruit growers. The allegation is denied by the petitioner. Petitioner has also claimed that he has nothing to do with M/s New Guru Nanak Vegetable Company. The allegations are subject to proof. 8. The custodial interrogation cannot be used as a method to extract confession. The FIR was registered on 15.07.2021 and more than a year has elapsed since initiation of investigation. The Investigating Agency already had more than sufficient time to lay its hands on the evidence, if any, against the petitioner. 9. The non-payment of amount allegedly due to fruit growers can also not be a ground for rejection of prayer for pre-arrest bail. The investigation cannot be converted into money recovery proceedings. In Udho Thakur and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1703-1704 of 2022, decided on 29th September, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “At the outset, learned counsel for the State has frankly referred to the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench, disapproving the propositions adopted in several orders by the High Court, imposing the terms of payment for the purpose of granting the relief of pre-arrest bail and remitting the matter for re-consideration with several observations. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we felt inclined to pass similar order in the present matter too, where the High Court has proceeded to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the appellants on the condition of their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and also depositing a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- as an ad-interim victim compensation. However, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the expression “victim compensation” as used in the impugned order may not be apt for the reason that it was not a case of recovery of victim compensation but, otherwise, the condition cannot be said to be unjustified or onerous because receiving of the said sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- by the appellants at the time of marriage has not been a fact in dispute. Even if we take the submissions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent on its face value, we are clearly of the view that in essence, the petitions seeking relief of pre-arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings and, ordinarily, there is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of prearrest bail, the person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment. While issuing notice in this matter on 16.04.2009, this Court has provided that the appellants shall not be arrested in connection with Complaint Case No. 1484 of 2017. Obviously, the said condition of depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- stood arrested because of the stay order of this Court. This position has hitherto continued. Having regard to the circumstances, in our view, the said condition of depositing a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the purpose of granting the relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be approved and else, the order granting bail deserves to be maintained. Hence, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter for reconsideration to the High Court and the order impugned deserves to be modified appropriately in these appeals only.” 10. Except as above, respondent has not been able to justify its opposition to the bail plea of the petitioner. The pre-arrest bail cannot be denied to the petitioner only on the ground that he is not disclosing the facts as required by the police or is not making the payments to the complainant. Except as above, respondent has not been able to justify its opposition to the bail plea of the petitioner. The pre-arrest bail cannot be denied to the petitioner only on the ground that he is not disclosing the facts as required by the police or is not making the payments to the complainant. As far as joining of investigation is concerned, petitioner has already complied with the orders of this Court and can be further bound down to do so. The only concern of the Court, at this stage, is to facilitate the fair and expeditious investigation and trial. 11. Respondent has not raised any real apprehension that in case of grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, his presence cannot be procured for the purpose of investigation or trial. No criminal antecedents have been attributed to the petitioner. It is not the case of respondent that petitioner has no permanent abode. 12. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule. No fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing the petitioner to be kept in custody till indeterminate period. Even otherwise, no justification is made out for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. The other co-accused Mohan Chawla has already been released on bail. 13. In peculiar facts of the case, the petition is allowed and in case of arrest of petitioner in case FIR No. 07 of 2021, dated 15.07.2021, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC, registered at Police Station CID Bharari, District Shimla, H.P., he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, who necessarily should have immovable assets in the State of Himachal Pradesh, to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, further subject to following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioner shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or to the Court. (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without the express permission of the trial Court. 14. (ii) That the petitioner shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or to the Court. (iii) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without the express permission of the trial Court. 14. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein-above.