Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chander vs State Of H.P on 26 July, 2024
( 2024:HHC:5925 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No.547 of 2024 a/w Cr.MP (M) Nos.570 and 863 of 2024 .
RESERVED ON : 19.07.2024 ANNOUNCED ON : 26.07.2024 ___________________________________________________________
1. Cr.MP(M) No.547 of 2024 Suresh Chander .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent For the petitioner: Mr. V.D. Khidtta and Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
ASI Satish Kumar, I.O., Police Station [East]. Shimla, District Shimla [H.P.], present with records.
2. Cr.MP(M) No.570 of 2024Prakash Veer Chauhan .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent For the petitioner: Mr. Narendra Guleria and Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
ASI Satish Kumar, I.O., Police Station [East]. Shimla, District Shimla [H.P.], present with records.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS -2- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )
AND
3. Cr.MP(M) No.863 of 2024
Sohan Lal .......Petitioner
Versus
.
State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
ASI Satish Kumar, I.O., Police r Station [East]. Shimla, District Shimla [H.P.], present with records.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Three bail petitioners, namely, [i] Suresh Chander; [ii] Prakash Veer Chauhan; and [3] Sohan Lal, have come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'], originated from FIR No.11 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024, under Sections 467, 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 201 of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS-3- ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'] registered at Police Station [East], Shimla, District Shimla [H.P.].
.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel/ Counsels is that the bail petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. It is further averred that bail petitioners have no connection with the aforesaid offences. It is further averred that nothing has been recovered and is due for recovery from the bail petitioners. Bail petitioners have specifically stated that there is no likelihood of their absconding or fleeing away from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and they undertake that they shall not tamper with the evidence or the witnesses and shall not cause any inducement, promise or threat to any person or persons connected with the case. It is further averred that investigation in the matter is complete and now final report/Challan has been presented by the police before jurisdictional Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
-4- ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) 18.05.2024. It is further averred by bail petitioners [Suresh Chander and Sohan Lal] had filed bail applications before Learned Trial Court, which .
were rejected on 27.02.2024 and 01.03.2024. The bail petitioners, namely, Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal had also filed the bail applications, before Learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla, which were rejected on 16.03.2024 by a common order.
2(i). In the instant bail applications, it is averred that they are innocent and their personal liberty cannot be infringed or deprived, merely on the basis of the accusation, which is also not prima-facie borne out from the records. It is averred that before arresting bail petitioners, even the compliance under Section 41 Cr.P.C., in terms of the mandate of law, in the case, of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, has not been complied with by the State Authorities.
In this background, the bail petitioners have ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
-5- ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) come up before this Court, praying for enlargement of bail.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
.
3. Upon issuance of notice on the Respondent-
State Authorities by this Court, Respondent-State Authorities have furnished the Status Report dated 29.05.2024 and thereafter the Fresh Status Report dated 16.07.2024. A perusal of Status Report(s) reveals that the averments contained in both the Status Reports are pari materia.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:
4. A perusal of Status Report(s) reveals that the entire case originated from a complaint dated 19.02.2024, submitted to the Police Authorities by Smt. Manjeet Bansal, Deputy Secretary [SA] to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, with the averments that on 16.02.2024 at about 11:30 a.m., one Shyam Lal Chauhan, Section Officer, GAD-C Section, H.P. Secretariat, visited the Chambers of the complainant alongwith one Prikshit Kumar, VPO Purag and Paras, ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
-6- ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) son of Shri Chander Mohan, VPO Purag, District Shimla [H.P.], who have come to the concerned Section Officer alongwith appointment/joining on 05.01.2024 and .
14.02.2024, appointing them as Peons on outsource by forging her signature. The complainant narrates that one Akshay also visited the SAS-1 Section of the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, on 19.02.2024 along with a copy of the appointment letter dated 12.02.2024, appointing him as Clerk, on contract/outsource basis.
Likewise, one Ajay, son of Shri Kashmir Singh also came to the Government Secretariat, alongwith similar letter, for enabling him to join as Clerk on contract basis.
The complaint reveals that in fact no such appointment letter was issued by the State/Secretariat Authorities and the aforesaid letter(s) contained forged and fabricated averments and forged signatures of the complainant.
4(i). Based on the complaint dated 19.02.2024, FIR was registered by Police Station [East], Shimla, on 19.02.2024.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS -7- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )
4(ii). Status Report(s) further reveals that the
investigation in the matter started on 20.02.2024, whereby, the statement of two candidates [Paras and .
Prikshit], who were issued the forged appointment letters were recorded, who during investigation named one person, Prikshit Azad, who was summoned by the police.
On making enquiries, it transpired that Prikshit Azad [main accused] along with one of his agent-Damandeep Singh, resident of Jogindernagar in District Mandi have collectively duped the unemployed youth, by promising jobs to them by fabricating documents and by forging signatures of complainant-competent authority. Based on this, the police arrested Prikshit Azad on 20.02.2024.
4(iii). Status Report(s) further reveals that the main accused Prikshit Azad disclosed to the police that he resorted to these illegal activities in conspiracy with one Damandeep Singh, resident of Jogindernagar and accordingly, Damandeep Singh, was arrested on 21.02.2024.
4(iv). Status Report(s) further reveals that Prikshit
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
-8- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )
Azad and Damandeep Singh have duped about thirty-nine [39] persons in a planned and coordinated manner with each other.
.
4(v). During the course of investigation on 21.02.2024, three persons namely, Himanshu Kumar, Harish Kumar and Pankaj Kumar, appeared before the Police Station [East], Shimla, who disclosed that they have also been duped at the behest of one Mohinder Bhardwaj, who was alleged to have acted through his agents i.e. Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal i.e. the bail petitioners in the instant petitions.
Police not being satisfied with the explanation so submitted arrested Mohinder Bhardwaj on 21.02.2024.
4(vi). On making further enquiries, it transpired that Mohinder Bhardwaj, has duped twelve [12] persons, by extorting an amount of Rs.12,04,236/-
[Rupees Twelve Lakh Four Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Six] allegedly through his agents i.e. Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal, bail petitioners herein. Status Report(s) further reveals that ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
-9- ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) Investigation is complete and the Final Report/Challan final report has been presented before the jurisdictional Court on 18.05.2024.
.
In the background of the Status Report(s), the Learned State Counsel has prayed for the dismissal of bail applications.
CLAIM OF BAIL PETITIONERS IN REBUTTAL:
5. In case of Cr.MP(M) No. 547 of 2024 [Suresh Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh], Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Learned Counsel submits that the stand in the Status Report is denied, by stating that the bank transaction details cannot be the basis for inferring accusation, when the bail petitioner is an agriculturist and he had received the amounts from various suppliers to whom the vegetables were supplied/sold by him.
The bills, which have been placed on record have not been denied/disputed by the State Authorities.
5(i). So far as Cr.MP(M) No. 570 of 2024 [Parkash Veer Chauhan, Mr. Narender Guleria, Learned Counsel submits that the bail petitioner has refuted the ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 10 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) accusation by asserting that the bail petitioner himself is a victim, whereby, the main-accused has duped him for an amount of about Rs 6,00,000/- since April 2020 .
onwards, by promising a job for his son, Narinder Chauhan, from whose account also, the bail petitioner has remitted the amount to Mohinder Bhardwaj for which he submitted a complaint to Superintendent of Police Shimla on 27.04.2024. It is submitted that the bail petitioner was himself duped by Mohinder Bhardwaj and yet the accusation against the petitioner is not borne out.
5(ii). In so far as Cr.M.P(M) No.863 of 2024 [Sohan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh] is concerned, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel submits that except for a stray entry of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand] remitted by Pankaj Sharma, though GP account is concerned, there is no other material to carve out a prima facie accusation and when, the factum that a person promises or induces another to pay Rs.5,000/-
[Rupees Five Thousand] only, in lieu of job, in Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 11 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) Pradesh Secretariat appears to be highly improbable at this stage. Moreover, the same is a matter of trial.
6. Heard, Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Mr. Narendra .
Guleria, Advocates and Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Learned Counsel, for the respective bail petitioners and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
7. Before dealing with the bail petitions, it is necessary to take note of the provisions of Sections 467, 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 201 IPC, which read as under:-
"Section 467 Indian Penal Code:
Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 12 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 419 Indian Penal Code: Punishment for cheating by personation.-- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished .
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 420 Indian Penal Code:
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 465 Indian Penal Code:
Punishment for forgery.--
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 468 Indian Penal Code: Forgery for purpose of cheating.-- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 469 Indian Penal Code: Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.--::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 13 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) Whoever commits forgery, [intending that the document or electronic record forged] shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and .
shall also be liable to fine.
Section 471 Indian Penal Code: Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]. Section 120-B Indian Penal Code: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.] Section 201 Indian Penal Code:
Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 14 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence .
which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.-- and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; r if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."
8. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for pre-arrest or post-arrest bail-regular bail is to be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the claim for bail in ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 15 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar .
versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist which lead to believe or point out towards the accusation and even these parameters for bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01.
9. While dealing with the case for grant of bail, three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has mandated in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para-25 that the "nature of crime" has a huge relevancy, while considering the claim ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 16 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) for bail.
9(i). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the .
Hon'ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under:
"11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons r touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including:
(i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence;
(ii) The severity of punishment;
(iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not;
(iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/ witnesses;::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 17 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )
(v) Likelihood of accused absconding from
proceedings;
(vi) Possibility of accused tampering with
evidence;
(vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct
.
the due course of justice;
(viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail;
(ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge;
(x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence.
12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and r circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the Cr. PC, as the case may be."
10. In normal parlance, the general principle of law is that while considering the prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], a prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards the accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 18 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) of either injuring or humiliating or whether a person has falsely roped in the crime needs to be tested in background of self-imposed restrains or the broad .
parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein above.
11. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No.3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate r of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, a Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, nature of evidence collected in support thereof, severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused during the trial, reasonable apprehension of evidence being tampered with or any possibility of causing an inducement, threat or promise ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 19 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) to either the witnesses or complainant or victim by carving out a balance between the liberty of an accused vis-à-vis the societal interests of the public-State at .
large.
In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court, is required to form a prima facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM IN INSTANT CASES:
12. After taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, statutory provisions, mandate of law as referred to above; and the material on record, including Status Report(s), this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:
13. Status Reports(s), do not point out any prima-
facie accusation against the bail petitioners, at this stage.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS - 20 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )
13(i). Material on record does not indicate any
reasonable grounds to believe accusation against the bail petitioners.
.
13(ii). On perusal of Status Report(s) dated 29.05.2024 and 16.07.2024, which are, by and large, pari-materia, reveals that one of the two main accused, namely, Prikshit Azad resorted to the illegal activities of duping the unemployed youths in Shimla and Mandi Districts of Himachal Pradesh. The aforesaid Prikshi Azad, in a coordinated design, with Damandeep Singh, have duped about thirty-nine [39] people and both of them, have extorted an amount of Rs.86,90,436/- [Rupees Eighty Six Lakh Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six] from aforesaid thirty-nine person(s). In these circumstances, though the accusation against Prikshit Azad and Damandeep Singh, is prima facie made out against both of them. However, notably, the Status Report and the material on record do not connect the bail petitioners with these two persons [Prikshit Azad and Damandeep Singh] at this stage.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS - 21 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )
13(iii). So far as the accusation against the bail
petitioners, namely, Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal, is concerned, the Status .
Report(s) indicate that the bail petitioners were acting as agents of one Mohinder Bhardwaj, a resident of District Solan, who was alleged to have duped twelve [12] has been denied, by stating that bail petitioners, were not the agents of Mohinder Bhardwaj. Further, the averment in Status Report(s) that the present bail petitioners were the agents of Mohinder Bhardwaj, is a fact to be proved, by way of evidence during the trial. Moreover, there is nothing on record to connect the bail petitioners, [Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal] with the main accused-Mohinder Bhardwaj, at this stage.
13(iv). Moreover, the Status Report(s) does not indicate any fabrication or forgery at the behest of the bail petitioners. Even, the State Authorities have not indicated anything incriminating against the bail petitioners. Moreover, no recovery has either been made or is intended to be made from the bail petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS- 22 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) Mere accusation cannot be made the basis of for detaining the bail petitioners endlessly, when, the accusation is not borne out which is nevertheless to be .
proved during the trial, in accordance with law. Unless and until the accusation is proved, the bail petitioners are to be treated as innocent in the eyes of law.
13(v). Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, r has outlined that the object of bail is neither punitive and preventative, in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in following terms:-
"11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 23 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention .
being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the r jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 24 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under:
"We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan .
Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques r to resort to the legal remedies provided by law.
Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police."
In the backdrop of the mandate of law in Guddan alias Roop Narayan [supra] since neither any prima facie accusation nor reasonable grounds ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 25 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) exist, then, the detention of the bail petitioners will lead to deprivation of liberty of the bail petitioners.
13(vi). While dealing with the concept of bail and .
personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:- r "18 Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS- 26 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) 20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
.
21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside."
14. Status Report(s) also do not indicate that the bail petitioners are required for further investigation, when, Final Police Report/Challan stands filed-presented by the State Police Authorities, before the jurisdictional Court, i.e. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla on 18.05.2024.
14(i). Status Report(s) does not contains any prima facie accusation against the bail petitioners that they have resorted to cheating and have dishonestly induced persons in any manner. There is no material on record, that the bail petitioners have resorted to any forgery for valuable security of any document or the electronic ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 27 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) record in any manner, at this stage.
14(ii). Even the Status Report(s) do not indicate any material connecting the bail petitioners, with the .
prime accused i.e. either Prikshit Azad or Damandeep Singh or Mohinder Bhardwaj, at this stage. Mere monetary transaction(s), which on facts have been refuted by the bail petitioners cannot be made the basis for inferring the prima facie accusation, which is not borne out at this stage.
Notably, once the Learned Senior Counsel/ Counsel(s) for the respective bail petitioners have refuted the averments in the Status Reports by stating that, in case of bail petitioner [Suresh Chander], the amounts deposited by him in his bank account related to payment(s) received from the vegetable agents/whole-
sellers to whom the goods-vegetables were sold, which is borne out from material on record [receipts etc.], then, the prima facie accusation is not borne out against Suresh Chander.
In case of bail petitioner [Prakash Veer
::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 28 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )
Chauhan] it is borne out from the material on record, that the main accused [Mohinder Bhardwaj], had promised job for Narinder Chauhan, son of the bail .
petitioner [Prakash Veer Chauhan] and both were duped of about Rs.6,00,000/- [Rupees Six Lakh], which is clear from the complaint made by bail petitioner to Superintendent of Police, Shimla District on 27.07.2024 [Annexure P-2]. Therefore, the main accused-Mohinder Bhardwaj in order to return money issued two cheques to bail petitioner, but the same were dishonoured. In these circumstances, once the bail petitioner [Prakash Veer Chauhan] and his son were themselves a victim of extortion by Mohinder Bhardwaj and no other material exists, then, the prima facie accusation is not made out against the bail petitioner [Prakash Veer Chauhan], at this stage.
So far as bail petitioner-Sohan Lal is concerned, a stray entry of meagre amount of Rs.5,000/-
[Rupees Five Thousand] in lieu of promising/providing a job, in the Himachal Pradesh Government Secretariat, ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 29 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) appears to be highly improbable. Moreover, the same is a fact, which is yet to be proved during the trial.
Further, the averment in the Status Reports that the .
bail petitioners were agents is outrightly denied and the same is yet to be proved during the trial. The detention of the bail petitioners cannot be preventative and punitive, when, in the facts of the instant cases, no prima facie accusation is made out, at this stage.
CONCLUSION:
15. In view of the discussion, and the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant bail petitions are allowed i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.547 of 2024 filed by Suresh Chander; Cr.MP(M) No.570 of 2024 filed by Prakash Veer Chauhan and; Cr.MP(M) No.863 of 2024 filed by Sohan Lal and the Respondent-State Authorities are directed to enlarge all bail petitioners, namely, Suresh Chander; Prakash Veer Chauhan; and Sohan Lal, on bail, subject to the observance of the following conditions:-
(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release the bail petitioners, namely, Suresh Chander;::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 30 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) Prakash Veer Chauhan; and Sohan Lal, on furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.75,000/- [Rupees Seventy Five Thousand] with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court concerned;
.
(ii) Petitioners shall abide by all other conditions, as may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, if any, in view of this order;
(iii) Petitioners shall neither involve themselves nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Any involvement or abetting shall entail the withdrawal of concession in terms of this order;
(iv) Petitioners shall disclose their functional E-Mail IDs/WhatsApp numbers and that of their sureties to the Learned Trial Court;
(v) Petitioners shall not hinder the smooth flow of the investigation and shall join the investigation, as and when called, by the r Investigating Agency;
(vi) Petitioners shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court;
(vii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence in any manner;
(viii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or the witnesses;
(ix) It is clarified that violation of any of the conditions imposed hereinabove, shall entail cancellation of bail automatically; and
(x) State Authorities are free to move this Court for alteration/modification of this Court, for violation as in (i) to (viii) supra, in the facts and circumstances so necessitates at any time herein-after.
16. Bail petitioners [Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal], who are in judicial ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS
- 31 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 ) custody, in District Jail Kaithu, District Shimla [H.P.] be released, as per norms, forthwith.
17. Any observations made herein-above, shall not .
be construed in any manner as an expression of opinion on merits of the aforesaid cases and these observations are confined only for the purposes of disposal of the instant bail applications.
18. In the aforesaid terms, all bail applications are allowed r and the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
Petitioners are permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 26, 2024 (Bhardwaj) ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2024 00:47:55 :::CIS