Himachal Pradesh High Court
Daljit Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 October, 2019
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1016 of 2019 Decided on: 23rd October, 2019 Daljit Singh ....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. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
ASI Gurdeep Singh, Police Station Una, r District Una, 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. 186 of 2019, dated 30.05.2019, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 218 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 20:26:42 :::HCHP 2purpose 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 25.05.2019 police received a complaint wherein complainant Shri .
Shankar Singh alleged that the petitioner, DM, HRTC, prepared fake papers and ultimately caused huge loss to the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (HRTC). It is alleged that during the year 2017 the petitioner was posted as DM, HRTC, at Hamirpur, and at that time HRTC had to recover huge arrears of money from tenants of its rented shops at Una and the said recovery was to be effected by the petitioner.
The petitioner, in connivance with one Ashok Kumar (tenant) prepared false and forged documents and depicted him as dead and report in this regard was sent to Head Office Shimla. Consequent upon the said report, HRTC suffered huge loss and the petitioner secretly took money in lieu of fake report from said Ashok Kumar. This fact was unearthed during the course of departmental enquiry conducted in the year 2018, however, no FIR was registered and the petitioner was suspended for some days. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police procured the relevant records from the HRTC and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The petitioner joined the investigation. The records revealed that the departmental enquiry is still pending. During the course of investigation, Ashok Kumar, who was shown as dead by the petitioner, was found alive and it was unearthed that the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 20:26:42 :::HCHP 3 alongwith other committee members depicted Ashok Kumar dead without any death certificate, so as to save him from depositing recovery of Rs. 60,91,025/- (rupees sixty lac ninety one thousand twenty five). It has further come in the investigation that no .
inappropriate loss has been caused to the HRTC, as the proposal for write-off outstanding amount was not accepted by the competent Authority and the Regional Manager concerned was directed to recover the outstanding amount. As per the police, the petitioner is not revealing the truth, so his custodial interrogation is required. 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 Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
5. The learned Senior 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 the place and joining and co-operating in the ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 20:26:42 :::HCHP 4 investigation. He has argued that nothing qua loss to HRTC has come on record during the course of police investigation, so the petitioner enlarged on bail. He has further 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 Senior 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 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 resident of the place neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the fact that that there is no allegation of loss caused to HRTC and the only allegation is that the petitioner tried to cause loss to HRTC, 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, as he ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 20:26:42 :::HCHP 5 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 the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 186 of 2019, dated 30.05.2019, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 218 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, 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)
23rd October, 2019 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2019 20:26:42 :::HCHP