Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pradesh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2022
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 13th DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) NO.1067 OF 2022
.
Between:-
TENZIN LHAKPA D/O SH. GONPO, TASHI JONG, R/O TARA
GARH, TEHSIL BAIJNATH, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, AGED 46 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.C. NEGI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. REETA
HINGMANG, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
r ...RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
AND MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
1
WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, passed the following :
ORDER
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of transit anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.RC0032022A0026, dated 10.5.2022, registered at P.S. CBI, ACB, New Delhi, under Sections 7, 7A, 8 of PC Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As per the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is permanent of the place and neither in a position to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2022 20:07:03 :::CIS 2tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and prays that the petitioner only wants to produce herself before the competent Court/authorities concerned.
.
3. As per the petitioner, she had applied for renewal of registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, on 29.4.2021, as per the procedure laid by the FCR to FCRA (MHA) for Dongyu Gatsal Ling, Nunnery. Later on 31.12.2021, one Mr. Ram Chand, called her to the Office of the petitioner and stated that he is calling from FCRA (MHA) and conveyed to the Office that annual return of Donghgyu Gatsal Ling, Nunnery, has not been filed properly. After receiving the call, the petitioner tried to contact FCRA (MHA), but was unable to do so and thereafter started searching the Internet and found that a consultancy firm, which could help the organization professionally for renewal of registration under FCRA. The petitioner came in contact with one Amita Chandra, who was the Director of M/s Shaurya Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd; and in furtherance of the discussion Amita Chandra told the petitioner that for the renewal of FCRA, the consultancy fees would be rupees four lac only. After negotiations Amita Chandra agreed to charge Rs.3,50,000/-, as consultancy fee, but the only condition which Amita Chandra insisted that she will take the entire amount of consultancy fees in cash, for which the petitioner agreed. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner be granted transit anticipatory bail for seven days only.
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2022 20:07:03 :::CIS 35. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper .
with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. He has further argued that the petitioner being a lady and law abiding citizen and considering the overall facets of the case, the instant petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted transit anticipatory bail. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment rendered r by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in Anticipatory Bail Application No.441 of 2021 titled Nikita Jacob vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 17th February, 2021, on this aspect.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that as the offence has been committed outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court can only grant transit bail and cannot grant bail, as the same will prejudice to the rights of the prosecution.
7. Heard. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner only wants transit bail, as the petitioner wants to make proper arrangements to seek appropriate reliefs in other State.
Since the petitioner would be ultimately approaching the Court having jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to make any observation on the merits of the case. In the light of factual matrix of the case protection, under Section 438 of Cr. P.C can be granted to the petitioner for temporary period of seven days only. So, it will be appropriate and in the interest of justice, the petitioner is released on bail forthwith for seven days only, in case FIR No.RC0032022A0026, ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2022 20:07:03 :::CIS 4 dated 10.5.2022, registered at P.S. CBI, ACB, New Delhi, under Sections 7, 7A, 8 of PC Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on her furnishing personal bond to the .
tune of `25,000/- (rupees twenty fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
i. That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/police/authorities as and when required.
ii. That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of r 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.
8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
9. However, it is made clear that this protection order is granted for a period of seven days only from today and the same shall automatically loose its force after seven days.
10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for adjudication of the present case and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.
Copy dasti.
( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ) Judge 13th May, 2022 (CS) ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2022 20:07:03 :::CIS