Ajay Kumar And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The matters are taken up through video conference.

The present bail applicants have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, in the

event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 113 of 2020, dated 13.04.2020, under Sections 420, 419, 212 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar

Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are permanent residents of District Kangra,

H.P., and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 13.04.2020, police received a registered letter disclosing some facts pertaining to investigation

carried-out in case FIR No. 94 of 2019, dated 11.08.2019, under Sections 419, 420, 212, 120B IPC, Police Station Bhawarna, District Kangra, H.P. It

is stated in the above letter that in Case FIR No. 94 of 2019 total 35 accused were charge-sheeted and main accused Vikram Singh absconded. On

10.01.2020 accused Vikram Singh was arrested and during the course of interrogation he disclosed that in the year 2017 he helped Ajay Kumar (one

of the petitioners herein) in getting government job, i.e., Warder, Prisoner Correctional Services Himachal Pradesh by charging Rs. 5-6 lac through

impersonation. Thus, the matter qua appointment of Warder, Prisoner Correctional Services Himachal Pradesh, was investigated and record qua

appointment of Jail Warder Ajay Kumar (petitioner), was procured. Upon the direction of this Court, petitioner Ajay Kumar joined the investigation.

Vikram Singh (another petitioner herein), upon the direction from this Court, also joined the investigation. As per the police the specimens of

handwriting of the petitioners are being sent to SFSL, Junga. Lastly, it is prayed that the applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as they were

found involved in a serious crime, the petitioners, in case, at this stage, enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee

from justice.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the

police reports, carefully.

The learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners are innocent and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are permanent residents of District Kangra, H.P. They have further argued that the petitioners

are joining the co-operating in the investigation and are also ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted. It is argued

that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, as they are joining and co-operating in the investigation, no purpose will be served

by sending the petitioners behind the bars, as nothing is to be recovered from them or at their instance, so the bail applications may be allowed and the

petitioners be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in a serious

offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice,

so the applications of the petitioners be dismissed.

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners are local residents of District Kangra, H.P., thus, is neither in a

position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, their custody is not at all required by the police, as they are

joining and co-operating in the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from them or at their instance. It is further argued that sending the

petitioners behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose, so the petitions be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, the fact that the petitioners are

permanent residents of District Kangra, H.P., thus, neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence,

considering the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, their custody is not at all required by the police, the petitioners

are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, and also the fact that sending the petitioners behind the bars will not

serve any fruitful purpose, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of

their arrest, in this case, is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, in the

event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 113 of 2020, dated 13.04.2020, under Sections 420, 419, 212 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar

Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (rupees

twenty five thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the

following conditions:

(i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioners 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.

In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.

Copy dasti.