Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nishi Kant Rana vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 18 September, 2018
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1040 of 2018 Decided on: 18th September,2018 Nishi Kant Rana ....Petitioner .
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Nitish Kaith, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. ______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 53 of 2018, dated 25.06.2018, under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
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. He is joining and cooperating in the investigation, so he may be released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 25.06.2018 complainant, Shri Rajesh Kumar, made a complaint to the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP 2police alleging that in the month of December, 2017, the petitioner contacted him through facebook and disclosed that he is working in Dubai in some company. The petitioner told the complainant that .
there is a vacancy in his company and he can manage to get complainant's working viza. The petitioner allured the complainant that the salary is handsome and he demanded Rs. 1,50,000/, so the complainant deposited Rs. 30,000/ in account No. 33039370597 and on 27.12.2017 the petitioner sent "Tourist Visa", and when the complainant asked as to why he sent "Tourist Visa", he demanded rest of the money. On 28.12.2017 the complainant deposited Rs. 1,20,000/ in account No. 33039370597. In the month of January, 2018, the petitioner came to his native place and when the complainant asked him about the job, he told him that there are two vacancies in the company and one more person is required, so the complainant asked his cousin brother about the job. Likewise, the cousin brother of the complainant deposited Rs. 2,00,000/ in the account of the petitioner. In the month of February, 2018, the petitioner informed them that their visa alongwith offer letter of company have come. The petitioner further told the complainant to get prepared Global ATM card and they were asked to come to Delhi and on 13.04.2018 they took flight to Dubai. However, on Dubai airport, the complainant and his cousin brother were not allowed and they were asked that their visa is wrong and the person, who managed the ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP 3 same has cheated with them. So, they took flight back to Delhi and the petitioner also came with them. The petitioner made to stay the complainant and his cousin brother at Delhi for three days and .
thereafter the petitioner fled away. As per the complainant, the petitioner, on the pretext of getting a good job for them, cheated them.
On the anvil of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case against the petitioner and the investigation ensued.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the investigation revealed that two more accomplices were with the petitioner, who cheated many persons. Account details qua the accounts of the petitioner and his accomplices were obtained. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner only got "Tourist viza" for the complainant and his cousin brother. Accused Ashu was arrested on 10.08.2018 and as he had refunded the money to the persons cheated, the learned Trail Court granted bail to him. The petitioner has deposited Rs. 40,000/ each in the accounts of the complainant and his cousin brother and now he has to pay Rs. 1,12,000/ to the complainant and Rs. 1,60,000/ to the cousin brother of the complainant. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Law Officer for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP 45. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has further argued that by .
keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. 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, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, the Law Officer has argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner have committed a serious offence by cheating the innocent persons, thus it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is also one of the persons, who is sailing in the same boat, as the complainant, as it emanates from the prosecution story and coupled with the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place, the case is based upon documentary evidence, also the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and the fact that the petitioner has already returned some of the money to the complainant and his cousin brother, 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. Under ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP 5 these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 53 of 2018, dated 25.06.2018, under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, registered in Police .
Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of `25,000/ (rupees twenty five 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 join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
(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.
7. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 18 September, 2018 th Judge (virender) ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2018 23:02:23 :::HCHP