Himachal Pradesh High Court
Surender Kumar Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 December, 2016
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.1473 of 2016 Decided on: 20th December, 2016 .
Surender Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
of Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Imran Khan. Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal,Dy. AG, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, rt ______________________________________________________________________ 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 anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 56 of 2016, dated 01.03.2016, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"), at Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.
2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, complainant Jagdish Chand, through an application, made a complaint 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:46:41 :::HCHP 2against the petitioner, wherein he has alleged that the petitioner deals in money lending business and in the year 2014 he requested the petitioner to lend him `31,00,000/- (rupees thirty one lac). The .
complaint in lieu of the aforesaid amount agreed to execute an agreement for sale of land in his favour, to issue blank cheques and also issue blank stamp papers in favour of the petitioner with a condition that on repayment of the loan amount he will return the of agreement, blank cheques and also the blank stamp papers to him.
Consequently, complainant executed three agreements dated 01.03.2014, 15.03.2014 and 22.05.2014.
rt Besides this, he has also issued six blank cheques and blank stamp papers to the petitioner.
The complainant has further alleged that he has liquidated his entire liability by paying `31,00,000/- (rupees thirty one lac) to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not return the agreements, blank cheques and blank stamp papers. It is further alleged by the complainant that accused forged the documents, which he never executed in favour of the petitioner and the same do not bear his signatures. The petitioner forged the signatures of the complainant by signing the documents himself. As per the complainant, he did not execute the agreements to sell dated 20.03.2014, 22.05.2014 and 01.03.2014. The petitioner, as per the complainant, altered the nature of the contents by inserting the words that all the loan amount against the property will be cleared by the purchaser (petitioner herein) before the date of execution of sale ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:46:41 :::HCHP 3 deed qua the agreed land. The petitioner has also mentioned in the agreement, dated 20.05.2014, that the complainant will pay double of the earnest money to him, however, these words were not there in .
agreement dated 22.05.2014. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 56 of 2016, dated 01.03.2016, was registered against the present petitioner under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
4. Police report stands filed. The learned counsel for the of petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is joining the investigation and also fully co-operating in it, rt thus his custodial interrogation is not at all required. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and he may not be granted pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record, including the police report, carefully, as well as the other material which has been collected by the police.
6. At this moment taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the facts that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is not in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:46:41 :::HCHP 4 petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in case FIR No. 56 of 2016, dated 01.03.2016, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 .
and 471 IPC, at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., he be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is of granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
rt
(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 is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
20th December, 2016 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:46:41 :::HCHP