Himachal Pradesh High Court
Trilochan Biswal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 May, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 845 of 2019 Decided on: 22nd May, 2019 Trilochan Biswal ....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. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 8, dated 03.04.2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 217, 218, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, registered in Police Station State CID, Bharari, 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 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 - 23/05/2019 21:57:08 :::HCHP 23. Police report stands filed. Tersely, as per the prosecution story, Indian Technomac Company Limited, Plant, Jagatpur, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, issued fake RTGS from Axis Bank, Branch .
New Patel Nagar, New Delhi, to HPSEB Sub Division Dhaula Kaun, District Sirmour, and owing to such fake RTGS the said company caused loss to the tune of Rs. 4,49,80,291/-. The State CID registered a case against the said company and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, it is unearthed that company submitted fake RTGS and cumulatively caused loss of Rs. 8,85,60,911/-. It was further found that the petitioner was fully aware about the fake RTGS, as he was Plant Head at Paonta Sahib. The petitioner was instrumental in illegally get renewing the bank guarantee by illegally conniving with the officials of the HPSEB, so the petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2019. As per the police, the main accused Rakesh Sharma is yet to be arrested. The petitioner is resident of Odisha, and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner may 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 is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2019 21:57:08 :::HCHP 3 prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. He has attracted attention of this Court to decisions of this Court as well as that of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this High .
Court, wherein bails were granted in the same case. On the premise of those decisions the learned counsel has argued that on the basis of parity, the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and during his stint the offences took place and the petitioner played important role in the commission of the offences, so at this stage the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, is mainly seeking bail on the premise of parity, as some of the accused persons, who are involved in the case, have already been released on bail. Indeed the principle of parity is not without exceptions. As per the police, many persons (accused) are involved in the offence and it has come during the course of investigation that the petitioner was well aware about the fake RTGS and he also connived with the HPSEB officials to get illegally renewed the bank guarantee of the defaulting company. During the stint of the petitioner the alleged offences took place and the petitioner worked actively for causing wrongful gains to the company and ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2019 21:57:08 :::HCHP 4 wrongful loss to the public exchequer. Thus, at this stage, keeping in view the role of the petitioner in the alleged offences, the petitioner does not deserve to be treated equally, hence the principle of parity has no .
application in the present set of circumstances.
7. At this stage, considering the facts that huge loss is caused to public exchequer and the same is yet to be recovered from the defaulting company, the role of the petitioner in the alleged offences, the manner in which the alleged offences have been committed, the fact that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he is resident of Odisha, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. The bail application, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
22nd May, 2019 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2019 21:57:08 :::HCHP