Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 September, 2018
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr.MPs(M) No. 1127 & 1165 of 2018 Decided on: 25th September, 2018
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 1165 of 2018:
Suresh Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1127 of 2018:
Pawan Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
r ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocates General.
ASI Balbir Singh, Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. ____________________________________________________________________ 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. 125 of 2018, dated 28.08.2018, under Sections 420 and 506 IPC 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:27 :::HCHPread with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Bhoranj, .
District, Hamirpur, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petitions, 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. They are ready and willing to joing the investigation, so they may be released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, Shri Kartik Sushant (complainant) made a complaint to the police alleging that he is running an I.T. Company in the name and style of Daten Technologies, Mandi, H.P. The complainant has further alleged that in May, 2018, he uploaded an advertisement on OLX website for selling a television set. Petitioner Pawan Kumar telephoned the complainant and told that he runs hotel business in Nahan and needs televisions and further told him that televisions are also needed for government supply. On the asking of petitioner Pawan Kumar, on 18.06.2018 the complainant went to Jahu to meet him. Both the petitioners agreed to the proposal of the complainant for selling the televisions. The complainant handed over a television set to the petitioners as sample. The petitioners issued a cheque ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:27 :::HCHP amounting to Rs. 1,55,000/ on the name of the company of the .
complainant, but no date was mentioned therein. The petitioners gave order to the complainant to supply 13 televisions and the price of televisions, according to its model and specification, was also settled. Total amount, which was to be paid by the petitioners, was Rs.1,73,950/ and the petitioners booked 13 televisions and other goods through Sood Goods Transport Co. 4019, Near OBC Bank Naya Bazzar, Delhi, Vide G.R. No. DLI 007204, dated 23.06.2008 and on 30.06.20018 the goods alongwith the televisions arrived at Jahu. As per the complainant, he purchased the above televisions from Trishul Enterprises, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, and paid Rs.64,512/ through Invoice No. TEGST 605, dated 23.06.2018.
The complainant handed over the above televisions to the petitioners and in lieu thereof petitioner Suresh Kumar issued cheque No. 140210, for Rs.1,60,000/ and the cheque amounting to Rs.1,55,500/, issued earlier, was returned by the complainant to the petitioners. However, the cheque issued by petitioner Suresh was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. When the complainant demanded his money the petitioners threatened him to do away with his life and they also refused to pay money. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered and ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:27 :::HCHP the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation it was .
unearthed that the petitioners are involved in many other cases. As per the prosecution, the petitioners are very clever persons and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice and may also tamper with the prosecution evidence. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has further argued that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. The petitioners are residents of the place and 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.
Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as the petitioners are habitual offenders and many cases have already been registered against them. The petitioners have committed a serious ::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:27 :::HCHP offence, thus it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners .
may be dismissed.
6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are ready and willing to join and cooperate the investigation and also considering the fact 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, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars and also considering the material, which has come on record, 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 their favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 125 of 2018, dated 28.08.2018, under Sections 420 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Bhoranj, District, Hamirpur, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of `25,000/ (rupees twenty five thousand) each 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 the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:27 :::HCHP
(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. In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.
Copy dasti.
th
(virender)
25 September, 2018
r to
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2018 22:58:27 :::HCHP