Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhoranj vs (By Shri Vinod Thakur on 9 May, 2022
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
1
REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 9th DAY OF MAY, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, JUDGE
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION(MAIN) Nos. 872, 873 & 848 /
2022
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) No. 872 of 2022
BETWEEN:
HARISH KUMAR ALIAS RISHU, S/O SH.
PARMANAND, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE GHUMARLI, P.O. KANJIAN, TEHSIL
BHORANJ, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VINOD THAKUR, ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME0 TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
02.
.........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P.K. BHATTI & SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH SHRI
KUNAL THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) No. 873 of 2022
BETWEEN:
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS
2
SUNIL SHARMA, S/O SH. VIDYA SAGAR, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.
LAGMANWIN, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR. H.P.
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VINOD THAKUR, ADVOCATE )
.
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMAHCAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
02.
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P.K. BHATTI & SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH SHRI
KUNAL THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) No. 848 of 2022
BETWEEN:
KARTAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SH.
MEHAR SIGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO
DUMEHAR, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT
BILASPUR, H.P. PRESENT IN JUDICIAL LOCKUP
IN DISTRICT JAIL HAMIRPUR, H.P.
........PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MADHURIKA VERMA, ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
{
.........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P.K. BHATTI & SHRI BHARAT
BHUSHAN ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERALS WITH SHRI KUNAL THAKUR,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
RESERVED ON: 06.05.2022
DECIDED ON : 09.05.2022
____________________________________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS
3
These petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following :-
ORDER
.
All these petitions are being decided by a common order, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The case as setup by respondent is that on 23.01.2022, the police officials of Police Station Bhoranj, received a secret information that Harish Kumar @ Rishu ( Petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 872 of 2022), working as salesman at liquor vend Bassi, had concealed boxes of country liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS" under culvert near village Plassi, which could be of spurious nature. "Rukka" was sent to the police station for registration of FIR and the police party immediately left for spot. On identification of petitioner Harish Kumar @ Rishu, 22 boxes of country liquor "Santra" brand with "VRV FOOLS" printed on each bottle were recovered and seized from underneath a culvert. During investigation, petitioner Harish Kumar @ Rishu disclosed that he was working as a salesman in the liquor vend at Bassi, which belonged to Neeraj Thakur and said Neeraj Thakur was brother-in-law of the person, accused in a case registered at Police Station Sundernagar, in respect of deaths of persons due to consumption of spurious liquor. According to petitioner Harish Kumar ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 4 @ Rishu, on 18.01.2022, at about 9:30 am, Ashish Soni, who was working as salesman as also the driver for Neeraj Thakur had unloaded 20 boxes of liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS" at his liquor vend without .
valid pass. He further disclosed that on 19.01.2022, Contractor Neeraj Thakur had informed him telephonically that since some persons had died at Sundernagar after consuming liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS", so the liquor of said brand should be concealed. He, accordingly loaded 12 unsold boxes of liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS" in his vehicle and visited Kartar Singh @ Karan (Petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 848 of 2022) who was working as salesman at liquor vend "Chahab", loaded 10 more boxes of the same brand of liquor and thereafter both of them concealed the boxes at the place from where it was recovered by the police.
3. Sunil Sharma (Petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 873 of 2022) was stated to be running an "Ahata" ( bar attached with retail liquor vend) at place Sulagwan, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. and is also stated to have criminally conspired with a motive to sell the spurious liquor without license.
4. The investigation is stated to be complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the Court against petitioners Harish Kumar @ Rishu, Kartar Singh @ Karan and Sunil Sharma ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 5 besides other co-accused Ashish Soni, Kuldeep, Rajiv Kumar, Neeraj Thakur and Gaurav Minhas, under Sections 39(1)(a), 39(2), 40, 44 of Himachal Pradesh Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and .
120-B of Indian Penal Code.
5. The allegations against the accused persons arrayed in above noted case are that they criminally conspired with each other to sell spurious liquor and in such process committed offences of fraud and forgery etc.
6. Petitioners have approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in above noted case for the second time.
Their earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2022, as the investigation was still continuing. Petitioners Sunil Sharma, Kartar Singh @ Karan and Harish Kumar @ Rishu had filed bail applications, respectively, bearing Cr.MP(M) Nos. 429, 495 and 507 of 2022. The samples of such liquor had been sent for chemical examination. Keeping in view the entirety of the circumstances as prevailed at the stage of consideration of earlier applications of petitioners, such applications were rejected at that stage.
7. Petitioners have contended that the investigation qua them has already been completed and nothing incriminating has been found against them. As per petitioners, Harish Kumar @ Rishu & Kartar Singh ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 6 @ Karan, they were simply the salesmen working under Contractor Neeraj Thakur and had obeyed the dictates of their master only.
Petitioner Sunil Sharma has contended that he was running license .
"Ahata" (Bar attached with retail liquor vend) and had been supplied the liquor by the employees of the Contractor. He did not have any knowledge about the authenticity or genuineness of the product supplied to him. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that they are permanent resident of State of Himachal Pradesh and there is no apprehension of their fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioners have undertaken not to tamper with the prosecution evidence. They have further undertaken to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report as well as record of the case.
9. The investigation is complete and challan has been filed in the Court. Perusal of chemical analysis report reveals that the samples of country liquor are opined to be unfit for human consumption on account of presence of suspended particles found in such samples.
10. There is no allegations against the petitioners that they had any role in the manufacture of such liquor or its procurement. The investigation revealed that petitioners Harish Kumar @ Rishu and ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 7 Kartar Singh @ Karan were salesmen of Contractor and had received the consignment through another employee of the Contractor. They had disposed or concealed the liquor bottles on the asking of the Contractor.
.
As regards petitioner Sunil Sharma, he again has not been attributed with any specific role in manufacture or procurement of the liquor.
11. Though the samples of liquor have been opined to be unfit for human consumption, but it is not the case of respondent-State that any consumer of such product, after having purchased the liquor from liquor vend where petitioners Harish Kumar @ Rishu and Kartar Singh @ Karan were salesmen or the "Ahata" run by petitioner Sunil Sharma had suffered any ailment, physical discomfort or death.
12. Respondent has not placed any tangible material on record to show that petitioners are influential persons or have the potential to tamper with the prosecution evidence. It is also not the case of respondent that release of petitioners on bail will in any manner affect the trial of the case adversely.
13. Petitioners are in custody since 25.01.2022. Their further custody will not yield any fruitful purpose. Pre trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule. The trial of the case is likely to take considerable time before conclusion.
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 814. Petitioners are permanent resident of State of Himachal Pradesh and there is no likelihood of their absconding or fleeing from the course of justice. No past criminal history is attributed to the .
petitioners.
15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitions are allowed and petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 10.2022, dated 24.01.2022, under Sections 39(1)(a), 39(2), 40, 44 of H.P. Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.
ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand.
iii) Petitioners shall be liable for immediate arrest in the instant case in the event of petitioners violating the conditions of this bail.
(iv) Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial.
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS 916. Any expression of opinion herein-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed only for the purpose of disposal of these petitions.
.
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
May 9,2022
(sushma)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2022 20:05:32 :::CIS