Anil Kumar Dogra vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 45 of 2017, dated 27.3.2017, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, Police District Baddi, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is permanent resident of District Una, H.P., thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 27.3.2017 police received a complaint from the office of Himachal Pradesh Beverages Ltd. (in short HPBL) wherein a request was made for registration of an FIR. It is alleged in the complaint that HPBL has opened depots at various places including at BBNDA for wholesale trade of liquor. During the reconciliation of accounts Sh. Ankush Chauhan, ETI, posted as Assistant Depot Manager at HPBL, Depot Baddi located at BBNDA Baddi, Factory outlet, sold liquor on credit basis and amount of Rs 3,22,51,948/- remains recoverable from them. Sh. Ankush Chauhan, in connivance with others embezzled the aforesaid amount. Upon the aforesaid complaint, police registered a case under the apt sections and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, police effected relevant recoveries including documents of the licensee contractors to whom Ankush Chauhan sold liquor on credit basis. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that during the period July, 2016 to December, 2016, licensee liquor contractors received liquor on credit basis from Ankush Chauhan which resulted into financial loss to state. Subsequently the police arrested the culprits involved in the offence. After investigation, on 13.5.2021, challan was presented in the trial Court. During the course of investigation, it was found that Anil Kumar (petitioner herein) was instrumental in depositing the embezzled amount in the accounts of some of the licensee contractors who are involved in the offence. The petitioner was working in A.D. Wine Company and he became partner in the said Company. The petitioner in connivance with others committed the aforesaid crime and he was having a hand in glove. So, ultimately, on 21.12.2021 the petitioner was arrested and he was medically examined. As per the police, one more case under Section 420 and 120-B IPC has been registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was instrumental in the commission of offence and considering his role in the alleged offence, his bail petition be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case has argued that present is a dispute with respect to the payment of outstanding amount of license fee and same can be recovered by the State Government and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for unlimited period.

Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General ha argued that the petitioner is the main accused and in fact he is liable to pay huge amount to the Government with respect to the liquor vends . He further argued that petitioner has failed to make payment of any amount till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has stated that the petitioner will make the payment of each and every penny which soever is found due against him. He further states that petitioner is having property in Chakrail and in Shimla in the name of his mother and also in Una and other places and being resident of the place he is not in a position to flee from justice and his property is already pledged with the Government and no purpose will be served by keeping him behind bars.

At this stage, considering the facts that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Una, thus he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he and his mother are having properties in their names in Shimla and Una and other places, the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter has stated that the petitioner will make payment of each and every penny which is found due against him and also considering the fact that investigation in the case is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in case FIR No. 45 of 2017, dated 27.3.2017, under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, Police District Baddi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 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 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.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

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.