Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himanshu Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 October, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1808 of 2019 Decided on: 14th October, 2019 Himanshu Sharma ....Petitioner Versus .
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Deputy Advocates General.
ASI Tek Ram, I.O. Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P. ______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
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. 102 of 2019, dated 15.06.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered in Police Station Theog, 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 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 keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2019 20:24:01 :::HCHP 23. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 15.06.2019 upon the complaint of Shri Krishan Dutt Sharma (complainant), police registered a case. The complainant, in his complaint, alleged that funds have been embezzled from the account of .
Theog Jaivik Krishak Utpad Vipnan Sehkari Sabha Seemit Rehighat, Tehog, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "Sabha"). As per the complainant, he is president of the said Sabha and it has 60 members.
The chief aim of the Sabha was to popularize the organic farming and facilitate the members to market their produce. The Sabha used to get financial help from NABARD. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the said Sabha. The petitioner committed theft of 2-3 cheques and forged the signatures of the complainant and withdrew Rs. 30,000/- on 23.03.2018, but the amount was recovered from the father of the petitioner and it was deposited in the bank on 01.05.2018.
Remaining cheques were stopped for payment. On 31.03.2019 the Sabha had closing balance of Rs. 1,86,997/-, but when the account was checked in the bank it reflected withdrawals of Rs.99,376/- on different dates by the petitioner. The petitioner got issued a new cheque book and pass book from the bank and embezzled the amount from the bank account of the Sabha. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, and the initial investigation carried out by the police, police registered a case against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that on 23.03.2018 the petitioner withdrew Rs. 30,000/- from the bank and on 01.05.2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2019 20:24:01 :::HCHP 3 father of the petitioner deposited the said amount in the bank. It has also come in the investigation that the petitioner got issued a new cheque book and a passbook from the bank. Police seized the relevant records from the bank. The bank record revealed that on various dates .
the petitioner withdrew different amounts from the bank account of the Sabha, through different mediums. The petitioner also got prepared a seal of the Sabha and the original is with the Sabha. Rs. 99,376/- is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. As per the police report, the petitioner did not join the investigation despite notice. Investigation in the matter is going on and the petitioner is required for interrogation.
Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage 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 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 further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is resident of ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2019 20:24:01 :::HCHP 4 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 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 Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is resident of the place and is joining 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 resident of the place neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the age of the petitioner, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the amount allegedly withdrawn/embezzled by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case he is granted bail, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police and also considering the overall facts, which have come on ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2019 20:24:01 :::HCHP 5 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. 102 of 2019, dated 15.06.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered in Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `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.
(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.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
14th October, 2019 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2019 20:24:01 :::HCHP