Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pramod Saah vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 March, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr.MP(M) No.641 of 2023 Date of Decision: 22.03.2023 _________________________________________________ Pramod Saah ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent _________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Jha & Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh & Ms.Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates General.
Inspector Kulbir Singh, SHO, Police Station Theog, present in person.
________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.3/2022, dated 05.01.2022, under Section 420 of the 1 1. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 2Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as "IPC"), registered .
at Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P.
2. Status report stands filed.
3. As per the status report filed by the respondent/State, a complaint was got registered at Police Station, Theog by one Shri Pawan Chauhan (complainant), wherein, it was alleged that one Pramod Saah (petitioner herein), Apple Contractor, had fled away without making the payment of apple fruits purchased by him from the complainant and some other fruits growers. It was also alleged that the petitioner-accused Pramod Saah who belongs to Bihar was running Shop No. 28 in the name of Pawan Fruit Company at Parala Fruit Market and was regularly visiting the market for purchasing apple crop. On 27.08.2021, the petitioner suddenly eloped from Parala Fruit Market after taking the delivery of apple crop worth Rs.30,16,022/- without making payment. It was also alleged that the petitioner cheated the complainants and other orchardists, namely, Laiq Ram Chauhan, Anil Kalta, Mohd.
Riyaz, Mahinder Chauhan, Girish Chauhan, Sunder Thakur, ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 3 Kesh, Jhina, Pratap Verma, Chauhan Brothers, K.K. Trading .
Company, Padam Singh Chauhan, Madan Chauhan, Gaurav, Vikram, Mukesh Chauhan, Rajeev Sharma, Satish Kumar, Mukund Lal, Jagat Janartha, Amit Sharma, B.M. Traders, Jai Vikram, Deepak Chauhan, Kailesh Chand, Keshav Chauhan, Nishant Chauhan etc.
4. During investigation, it was found that the apple fruits were being sold to Pramod Saah and in this regard, copies of Ledger, Bill, license etc. were taken into possession by the police and statements of the witnesses were also recorded. It was also found that Pramod Saah had cheated the fruit sellers and fruit growers to the tune of Rs.98,11,639/- and thereafter absconded. The petitioner evaded his arrest and ultimately he filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Shimla, which was dismissed on 27.02.2023 and thereafter, he filed the instant bail petition before this Court, seeking anticipatory bail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 4 falsely implicated in the present case. He also submitted that .
it is a case of civil nature and the allegations against the petitioner are vague and non-specific and it cannot be given the cloak of criminal proceedings. He further submitted that the investigation of the case is complete and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence of cheating and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He further contended that as investigation in the case is still in progress, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he will definitely influence the witnesses and will tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Hence, it is prayed that the present bail application may be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 57. It is a settled law that the anticipatory bail can be .
granted only in exceptional circumstances. Being an extraordinary remedy, it should be resorted to only in a special case.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and also perused the record. The perusal of the record prima facie reveals that the petitioner is involved in cheating the complainant and other fruit growers to the tune of Rs.98,11,639/-. As per status report, after purchasing the apple crop from the complainant and other fruit growers, the petitioner fled away without making payment to them. The matter cannot be said to be purely of a civil nature, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner, prima facie, cheated the fruit growers on the basis of false promise to make payment to them after receiving the apple crop supplied to him. Though, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage, because it is likely to influence the trial Court, but the evidence collected during investigation, prima facie, indicates the involvement of ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 6 the petitioner in a serious economic offence and there .
appears to be no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner.
9. Once the allegations against the petitioner are of such type, he cannot claim anticipatory bail as a matter of right. It is a settled law that provisions for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C., are not to be mechanically applied. Nature and gravity of the offence, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, possibility of the accused tampering with the evidence and larger public interest are some of the considerations which must weigh with the Court while deciding the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Liberty of a citizen is indeed of a paramount importance, but at the same time, fair and fearless investigation of case of a serious nature is of no less importance. The Court shall refrain from exercising its discretion in favour of the accused under Section 438, Cr. P.C., if it adversely affects the investigation and larger public interest.
::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 710. In State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 Supreme .
Court Cases 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"6.We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-
arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 8
11. In XXXXX Versus Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., .
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 9 anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for .
custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail.
The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused.
Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
12. In the instant case, since the petitioner-accused is alleged to be involved in the commission of a serious economic offence of cheating many fruit growers, hence, he is required to be interrogated. Therefore, in view of the serious nature of allegations against him, a wall cannot be created between the Investigating Agency and the petitioner-
::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 10accused. Therefore, considering the law, which has been laid .
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view the facts and circumstances of this case as the investigation in this case is still in progress, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is likely to hamper the progress of the investigation. As such, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438, Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail and, as such, this Court is of the view that the present bail application has no merit and is liable to be rejected.
13. Before parting with this order, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid observations made in this order, have been made only for the purpose of considering the present petition for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the same shall not come in the way of the trial court for considering the application that may be filed by the petitioner for regular bail or at the time of the trial and the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS 1114. Accordingly, the present bail application is .
dismissed and the interim relief granted on 16.03.2023 stands vacated.
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge March 22, 2023 (VH) ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2023 20:39:27 :::CIS