Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 January, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.M.P (M) No. 1698 of 2018
Date of decision: 5.1.2019
.
Rakesh Kumar. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate
General, with Mr.R.P. Singh and Mr.Raju Ram
Rahi, Deputy Advocate Generals.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
This petition has been filed by petitioner seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 70 of 2018, dated 28.3.2018 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P.
2. On the basis of status report and record, it is pointed out by learned Deputy Advocate General that there are two documents available on record against the petitioner, which indicates his involvement in registration of two sale deeds bearing Nos. 49 and 50, dated 19.1.2007 and attestation of mutation thereof on 19.4.2007. Perusal of record indicates that on the sale deed, photograph of Tehsildar i.e. petitioner is original, whereas the photographs of the persons including vendor and vendee, purported to be present on that date, have been inserted later on by using Photoshop or any other technique.
3. On last date of hearing, time was sought on behalf of the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit along with complaint filed by him with the Superintendent of Police, Distrit Kangra at Dharamshala against the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2019 23:02:51 :::HCHP 2 Cr.M.P (M) No. 1698 of 2018 registration of these two sale deeds, bearing No. 49 and 50. Supplementary affidavit stands filed along with copy of complaint. It is stated by the petitioner, in the supplementary affidavit, that during his posting from .
24.4.2003 to 1.11.2007 as Tehsildar Indora, he had found irregularities in the office of Assistant Collector 1st Grade and on his complaint, about ten cases of illegal sale of land were detected and out of these in 7-8 cases proceedings under Section 118 of H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated and during that period he had also issued warnings to the staff working in his office and some departmental action was also taken against some officials, due to which he was not having good relations with them.
4. In complaint, execution of sale deed Nos. 49 and 50 on 19.1.2007 and attestation of mutations thereof have not been disputed, however, it is submitted that at the time of execution of the said sale deeds genuine persons were present before him and after making due inquiry, the said deeds were directed to be registered and further that the mutations pertaining to the said sale deeds have been attested in presence of Dharam Singh and Gurmail Singh (Vendor and Vendee) by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Naib Tehsildar) and at the time of attestation of mutations, no objection has been raised by these persons regarding genuineness of these sale deeds. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that distortion in photographs appears to be a handy work of officials annoyed from petitioner so as to involve him in false case and they might have pasted a wrong photograph in connivance with the Photographer engaged for taking the photograph at the time of execution of sale deed, as the said photographer was also an outsourced person and belonging to that local area.
5. As per status report, petitioner has joined the investigation and is cooperating with the Police.
::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2019 23:02:51 :::HCHP 3 Cr.M.P (M) No. 1698 of 2018
6. Keeping in the view the nature of the offence and facts and circumstances detailed herein above, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the .
sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;
(ii) that the petitioner shall 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 from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;
(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;
(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;
(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;
(v) that he shall not leave the territory of India without prior information. He shall inform the Police/Court about change in address, if any, in future.
6. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioners as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
7. In case the petitioners violate any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.
::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2019 23:02:51 :::HCHP 4 Cr.M.P (M) No. 1698 of 2018
8. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.
.
9. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
5th January, 2019 Judge.
(KRS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2019 23:02:51 :::HCHP