Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satish Inder Nath vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 18 December, 2017
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) Nos.1350 and 1351 of 2017.
Decided on: 18th December, 2017.
.
___________________________________________________
1. Cr.MP (M) No.1350 of 2017 Satish Inder Nath ...Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
2. Cr. MP (M) No.1351 of 2017 Laxmi Narain ...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 (s) : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
ASI Yog Raj, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, present in person.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).
The present bail applications have been moved by the petitioners, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 167 of 2017, dated 11.8.2017, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:09:32 :::HCHP 22. As per the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a .
position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus they may be released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 11.8.2017, complainant made a complaint against the petitioners alleging therein that the petitioners approached the complainant-Bank for financial assistance of sponsored by KVIB (Khadi and Village Industry Board) under PMEGP (Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme) scheme for establishment of shuttering unit and accordingly Head Office of the complainant-Bank sanctioned a loan of `3,60,000/-
and the same was disbursed to the petitioners. Shri Gegal Ram, stood guarantor of the petitioner, for repayment of said loan. The complainant-Bank issued a form 'Ibr' creating Charge on immovable property, under Section 47 of H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968.
Thereafter, Shri Gegal Ram and the petitioner got marked the said form from the Tehsildar, Nalagarh, to the concerned Patwari of Patwar Circle, Mittian, for creation of charge and they both handed over the said form to the then Branch Manager, wherein rapat No.129, dated 30.10.2010 of mortgage for an amount of `3,60,000/- was found to be entered in favour of the complainant-Bank. Satish Inder Nath (petitioner) has failed to repay the loan facilities to the complainant-Bank, as agreed by him ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:09:32 :::HCHP 3 and has made persistent default in repaying the said amount despite repeated oral as well as written requests on the part of complainant-
Bank. On enquiry, the petitioners have not utilized the funds of the bank .
for the purposing of establishing shuttering unit. No shuttering unit was established by the borrower Satish Inder Nath (petitioner), which clearly shows that the funds of the complainant-Bank has been misappropriated and mis-utilized by them, and thus, committed fraud and cheating with the complainant-Bank. Thereafter, the officials of the complainant-Bank has obtained the latest copy of jamabandi qua the land of guarantor Gegal Ram and were shocked that the land of Gegal Ram, stood mortgaged in favour of Punjab National Bank, Nalagarh, for an amount of `2,00,000/-, vide rapat No.394, dated 29.5.2009, meaning thereby the land was mortgaged in favour of the complainant-Bank against Satish Inder Nath (petitioner). The petitioner-Satish Inder Nath and his guarantor Gegal Ram, have got prepared the forged and fabricated jamabandi. So, the petitioners in collusion and conspiracy with each other have fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the complainant-
Bank with dishonest intention by way of misrepresentation and cheating by preparing the forged revenue documents and using the said forged documents to be genuine. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:09:32 :::HCHP 44. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Law Officer for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and are joining and co-operating in the investigation, as and when required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars, no fruitful purpose will be served. He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Law Officer for the respondent, has argued that taking into consideration the heinousness of the crime, the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed.
6. After taking into consideration the facts, which have come on record that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court finds that the present is a fit case, where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 167/2017, dated 11.8.2017, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station, ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:09:32 :::HCHP 5 Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., on their furnishing personal bonds to the tune of `20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety each in .
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
i. That the petitioners will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. ii. That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
iii. That the petitioners 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. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
18th December, 2017 Judge
(CS)
::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:09:32 :::HCHP