Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neeta Kumari vs State Of H.P on 17 July, 2019
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. MP (M) Nos.1313 & 1314 of 2019.
Decided on: 17th July, 2019 .
1. Cr. MP(M) No. 1313 of 2019.
Neeta Kumari ......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ....Respondent.
2. Cr. MP(M) No. 1314 of 2019.
Navneet r ......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ....Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Mrs. Suman Thakur & Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore Addl.
A.Gs. & Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy.
A.G. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).
This judgment shall dispose of both the applications arising out of FIR No.78/19, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:53:16 :::HCHP 2registered against them and their co-accused Pawan Kumar on 8.7.2019 under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468, and 477A of the Indian Panel Code in Police .
Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P.
2. The complainant is Vishal Kumar Kapila resident of village Beri Brahmana, P.O. Bhukkad, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. He has made the complaint to the Police of Police Station Bhoranj that he had given a sum of `40,000/- to accused Pawan Kumar on 19.8.2018, another sum of `40,000/- on 22.8.2018 and again `40,000/- on 24.8.2018. One Saroj Kumari handed over `40,000/-
on 26.8.2018 and `40,000/- on 27.8.2018 again to accused Pawan Kumar. Smt. Rekha Devi has also given a sum of `75,000/- to accused Pawan Kumar on 15.5.2018, `40,000/- on 6.9.2018, `40,000/- on 19.9.2018 and `40,000/- again on 19.9.2018. This amount was invested by them at the instance of accused petitioner Pawan Kumar in TD/MIS/RD and PLI accounts. Accused Pawan Kumar had to deposit ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:53:16 :::HCHP 3 this amount in the post office in the accounts of the complainant Saroj Kumari as well as Rekha Devi aforesaid, which were to be opened by him in their .
name.
3. To the utter surprise of the complainant, when account Nos.3674669580, 3640336764, and 3686917242 he allegedly opened in the name of the complainant checked in the post office were not found in existence. Similarly, account Nos. 3507367812 and 3652539171 of Saroj Kumari were also not available in the record of the post office. The account Nos.3658966933, 3728347976, 3731204389 and 3728532178 allegedly opened by him in the name of Rekha were also found fake being not in existence in the record of the post office. The copy of the RD Account was with accused Pawan Kumar and not given by him to the complainant.
4. The complaint, therefore, is that Pawan Kumar has duped the complainant and two ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:53:16 :::HCHP 4 ladies and other persons also in that area and thereby committed an offence of breech of trust and forgery. His wife accused Neeta Kumari and son .
Navneet, accused-petitioners herein are stated to have assisted him in collecting the money from the investors like the complainant party and in connivance with him misappropriated the money so collected. Money given by the complainant party to accused Pawan Kumar has not been counted for by him anywhere and its investment have been shown in the account which are not at all in existence.
Therefore, according to the complainant, it is not only the case of breech of trust, but misappropriation and embezzlement of the money they invested and handed over to accused Praveen Kumar for deposit in TD/MIS/RD and PLI investment schemes. The complainant party as such has not only been deprived from their money but also the benefit of interest and bonus etc., to which they were legally entitled.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:53:16 :::HCHP 55. Consequent upon the orders passed by this Court in these petitions, both the accused-
petitioners have made themselves available for the .
purpose of interrogation and they have been interrogated. Their specimen hand writing and signatures stand already obtained for comparison.
The principal accused Pawan Kumar has been arrested in this case and interrogated in custody.
Presently, he is stated to be remanded in judicial custody.
6. The investigation though is stated to be at its initial stage, however, there is no complaint of the accused-petitioners not available to the Police for their interrogation. Otherwise also, the principal accused is Pawan Kumar. It is he, who allegedly was collecting the money from the investors like the complainant and two ladies with the assurance that he will deposit the same in their respective accounts in the post office and they will get the incentives such as interest and bonus on the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:53:16 :::HCHP 6 money so invested by them. The accused-
petitioner Neeta Kumari is lady whereas Navneet her son, aged 18 years. In the given facts and .
circumstances, the present is not a case where their custodial interrogation is required.
7. Therefore, these applications are allowed and it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the accused-petitioners in connection with FIR No.78/19, registered with the police of Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, they shall be released on bail, subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Police Officer/I.O., and shall further abide by the following conditions:-
They shall:
a. make themselves available for interrogation as and when required and shall cooperate with the investigating Officer to conduct the investigation in a manner so as to take it to its logical end;::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:53:16 :::HCHP 7
b. not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
.
c. not 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 Court or the Police officer; and d. not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
8. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them; the Investigating Agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
9. The observations hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of these petitions and have no bearing on the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
July 17, 2019 (ps) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:53:16 :::HCHP