Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sameer Sood vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 May, 2018
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1516 of 2017 Decided on: 22nd May, 2018 Sameer Sood ....Petitioner .
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocates General.
SI Jeet Singh, Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. ______________________________________________________________________ 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. 314 of 2016, dated 06.10.2016, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 403, 422, 465 and 120B IPC, Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
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, so se may be released on bail.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:52:15 :::HCHP 23. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 06.10.2016, police received a communication from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, whereby complaint of complainant .
(Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Nurpur) was forwarded for investigating the matter. As per the allegations made in the complaint, after receipt of application for grant of loan by the petitioner, loan of `13,00,000/- (rupees thirteen lac) was granted to him for purchase of crane. The crane was to be purchased from M/s Jai gurdev Autos (Dealer, Matour, Tehsil and District Kangra) for the sum of `16,80,000/- (sixteen lac eighty thousand).
r The petitioner also submitted receipt qua payment of margin money, thus loan amount of `13,00,000/- (rupees thirteen lac) was disbursed on 18.02.2014 through RTGS to account No. 140605500010 with ICICI Bank, Kangra Branch, which is on the name of M/s Jai Gurdev Auto. The petitioner did not submit insurance, RC etc. and when he was communicated, the letters were undelivered. On 27.06.2014 the petitioner visited the branch of the bank and informed that machinery has not been delivered to him and the same will be supplied within 45/60 days. The petitioner again visited the bank on 21.10.2014 and deposited `3,00,000/- (rupees three lac) in the loan account and he also assured that he will try to get the money refunded from the dealer. However, since then the petitioner is not traceable. Thus, the petitioner cheated the bank. In the wake of the circumstances as above, the complainant, ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:52:15 :::HCHP 3 tried to lodge a complaint with the police, but SHO, Nurpur, did not register the case and advised the complainant to file a recovery suit.
Hence, the complainant approached the Court and the Court ordered .
investigation in the matter. On the basis of the complaint, so filed by the complainant, a case was registered and the investigation ensued.
Police obtained the account details of the petitioner and accused Pankaj Vij, Proprietor of M/s Jai Gurudev Autos, Matour, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. On 15.12.2017, the accused Pankaj Vij was arrested and he was medically examined. Police took his specimen signatures, whichr have been sent to RFSL, Dharmshala, for examination and report thereof has been received. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The police investigation revealed that the petitioner in connivance with accused Pankaj Vij cheated the bank. As per police, the petitioner on 01.02.2018 has joined the investigation and he is co-operating in the investigation. Challan stands presented in the Court. The petitioner is very clever person and in case he is enlarged on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and his ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:52:16 :::HCHP 4 custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. The petitioner is resident of the place and he is 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 learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place, and also considering the overall aspects of the case, which have come on record, 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 these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 314 of2016, dated 06.10.2016, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 403, 422, 465 and 120B IPC, Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., 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 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:52:16 :::HCHP 5 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.
(iv) In case the petitioner does not provide the documents, as required by the police, including the PAN Card, and will not co-operate in the investigation, the prosecution will be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of the bail at any time.
7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
22nd May, 2018 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2018 22:52:16 :::HCHP