Archana Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.—This judgement shall dispose of above three petitions, which have been filed by the petitioner against orders dated 9.4.2012, 9.4.2012 and 11.5.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in bail application Nos. 16- G/XXII/2012, 17-G/XXII/2012 and 19-G/XXII/2012 respectively. Cr. MMO No. 91 of 2012 has been filed in FIR No. 216 dated 4.12.2011 registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, whereas Cr. MMO No. 92 of 2012 has been filed in FIR No. 186 dated 1.12.2011 registered at Police Station, Dehra and Cr. MMO No. 93 of 2012 has been filed in FIR No. 163 dated 19.10.2011, registered at Police Station, Dehra.

Cr. MMO No. 91 of 2012.

FIR No. 216, dated 4.12.2011 has been registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at the instance of Pankaj Kumar complainant on the allegations that he had talk with one Kuldip for employment in Assam Rifle and Health Department, who assured that complainant and his brother Ajay Kumar would be employed in Assam Rifles and Health Department. The complainant alleged that he and his brother were called by Kuldip in March 2011 at place Chambapatan. Kuldip Kumar, Anita Sandal, Ranjit Singh and his wife were present at Chambapatan. The complainant and his brother Ajay Kumar gave Rs. 3,00,000/- each in cash to Kuldip for employment in Assam Rifles and Health Department.

The certificates of complainant were taken by Kuldip Kumar and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was taken as fare. They were sent to Guwahati and were kept in some hotel, their medical was conducted. They were assured that call letters will be issued for employment. The complainant received call letters, the complainant apprehended that call letters were false.

On the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner filed bail application, which was allowed on 9.4.2012 by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, the relevant portion of the bail order is as follows:-

It is ordered that applicant/ accused will be released on bail on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rs. ten lacs) with two local sureties in like amount to satisfaction of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Dehra Distt. Kangra H.P. subject to following conditions:-

i) That applicant-accused shall join investigation of case as and when directed by police in accordance with law.

ii) That applicant-accused shall not leave District Kangra without previous permission of the court till conclusion of trial.

iii) That applicant-accused shall not directly or indirectly

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or any Police Officer.

iv) That applicant-accused shall not hamper investigation and trial in any manner.

v) That applicant will attend trial of case regularly and exemption will be sought in accordance with law.

vi) That applicant will maintain utmost decency in her behaviour till conclusion of trial.

vii) That applicant will not commit offence similar to the offence of which applicant is accused.

It has been stated that petitioner is a resident of Assam and is not in a position to furnish two local sureties as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner does not know anyone in District Kangra. The bail conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are highly arbitrary and cannot be complied by the petitioner. It is impossible for the petitioner to furnish two local sureties in all three cases. It has been stated that except the condition of furnishing two local sureties in the like amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the petitioner undertakes to abide by all other conditions i.e. (i) to (vii) mentioned in the operative part of order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The submission has been made for modification of order dated 9.4.2012.

The respondent has contested the petition by filing reply and supported the impugned order. The Superintendent of Police, District Kangra at Dharamshala has filed affidavit dated 25.7.2012. It has been stated that it has come in the investigation that 36 unemployed youths were cheated by petitioner and other accused and in all Rs. 74,79,000/- were collected from 36 unemployed youths under the garb of giving them employment.

Cr. MMO No. 92 of 2012.

FIR No. 186 dated 1.12.2011 has been registered at the

instance of Ashish Kumar under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. It has been alleged that complainant came in contact with Ramesh Chand, who told him that he would be employed in Assam Rifles if he could spend some money. The complainant and other persons paid some amount. They were sent to Guwahati for their medical. They were kept in hotel Gajraj. They were assured that appointment letters would be issued to them. The appointment letter issued to complainant in September 2011 by Ramesh Chand. The complainant and Sunil Kumar paid Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively to Ramesh Chand. The complainant and others were taken to Delhi on the pretext that they would be given joining. They were sent to Guwahati in rail. Thereafter the complainant and others were informed that their joining would be submitted after one month. But no joining was submitted.

The petitioner was arrested. The petitioner filed bail application, which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 9.4.2012, the relevant portion of the bail order is as follows:-

It is ordered that applicant/ accused will be released on bail on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rs. ten lacs) with two local sureties in like amount to satisfaction of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Dehra Distt. Kangra H.P. subject to following conditions:-

i) That applicant-accused shall join investigation of case as and when directed by police in accordance with law.

ii) That applicant-accused shall not leave District Kangra without previous permission of the court till conclusion of trial.

iii) That applicant-accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or any Police Officer.

iv) That applicant-accused shall not hamper investigation and trial in any manner.

v) That applicant will attend trial of case regularly and exemption will be sought in accordance with law.

vi) That applicant will maintain utmost decency in her behaviour till conclusion of trial.

vii) That applicant will not commit offence similar to the offence of which applicant is accused.

It has been stated that petitioner is a resident of Assam and is not in a position to furnish two local sureties as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner does not know anyone in District Kangra. The bail conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are highly arbitrary and cannot be complied by the petitioner. It is impossible for the petitioner to furnish two local sureties in all three cases. It has been stated that except the condition of furnishing two local sureties in the like amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the petitioner undertakes to abide by all other conditions i.e. (i) to (vii) mentioned in the operative part of order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The submission has been made for modification of order dated 9.4.2012.

The respondent contested the petition by filing reply and supported the impugned order dated 9.4.2011. In the affidavit dated 25.7.2012 of Superintendent of Police, District Kangra, it has been stated that during the course of investigation, it has been found that 67 unemployed youths were cheated by petitioner and other accused, they had collected Rs. 1,09,69,000/- from them under the garb of providing them employment.

Cr. MMO No. 93 of 2012.

FIR No. 163 dated 19.10.2011 has been registered at the instance of Paras Sandal etc. under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. It has come in investigation that accused collected money from unemployed youths for providing them employment in Assam Rifle. The amount of collection was given to petitioner. On the allegations in the complaint, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner filed application for grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala on 11.5.2012, the relevant portion of the bail order is as follows:-

It is ordered that applicant/ accused will be released on bail on furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rs. ten lacs) with two local sureties in like amount to satisfaction of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Dehra Distt. Kangra H.P. subject to following conditions:-

i) That applicant-accused shall join investigation of case as and when directed by police in accordance with law.

ii) That applicant-accused shall not leave District Kangra without previous permission of the court till conclusion of trial.

iii) That applicant-accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or any Police Officer.

iv) That applicant-accused shall not hamper investigation and trial in any manner.

v) That applicant will attend trial of case regularly and exemption will be sought in accordance with law.

vi) That applicant will maintain utmost decency in her behaviour till conclusion of trial.

vii) That applicant will not commit offence similar to the offence of which applicant is accused.

viii) That applicant will disclose her residential address to I.O. in written manner situated within district Kangra (HP).

It has been stated that petitioner is a resident of Assam and is not in a position to furnish two local sureties as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. The bail conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are highly arbitrary and cannot be complied by the petitioner. It is impossible for the petitioner to furnish two local sureties in all three cases. It has been stated that except the condition of furnishing two local sureties of like amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the petitioner undertakes to abide by all other conditions i.e. (i) to (vii) mentioned in operative part of order passed by learned Sessions Judge. The submission has been made for modification of order dated 11.5.2012.

The respondent has contested the petition by filing the reply and supported the impugned order. The Superintendent of Police, District Kangra at Dharamshala has filed affidavit dated 25.7.2012. It has been stated that petitioner and other accused have collected Rs. 8,25,000/- from five unemployed youths for providing them jobs in Assam Rifles.

Heard. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that condition of two local sureties imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the bail orders is arbitrary, the petitioner is not in a position to comply this condition and therefore, the petitioner has been virtually denied bail in all the three cases. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied Keshab Narayan Banerjee and Another Vs. The State of Bihar, , I. Glaskasden Grace and Others Vs. Inspector of Police and Another, , and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, . It has been submitted that condition of two local sureties is harsh. The submission has been made for modification of bail orders by imposing reasonable amounts of personal and surety bonds.

The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner belongs to Assam and in order to ensure her presence during trial and keeping in view the seriousness of offence in three cases, the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are just and reasonable. The petitioner has not stated that she has any root in Himachal Pradesh. There is apprehension that in case she is released on bail without proper safe guards in the form of sureties, she will abscond and will not be available for trial.

In Keshab Narayan Banerjee (supra), the condition imposed by the High Court of furnishing security for rupees one lakh in cash or in fixed deposit in nationalized bank in Bihar with two sureties residing in the State for like amount was considered excessive and onerous. The appellant in that case was enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge.

In I.Glaskasden Grace (supra) the Supreme Court has noticed Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi Rep. by Secretary, Home Deptt., and Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana, . In I. Glaskasden Grace, the allegations against the appellants were that they conspired and forged the encumbrance certificate and impersonated themselves as owners of the house sites, prepared a false sale deed and registered the same in favour of the complainant and cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 62,62,000/-. The High Court passed an order granting anticipatory bail on the condition that in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be enlarged on bail on their depositing title deeds of property worth Rs. 20,00,000/- standing either in their name or in the name of the third parties and also on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the like amount. The Supreme Court held that approach of the High Court was incorrect as onerous and unreasonable conditions were laid down as condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail. The matter was remanded to the High Court to consider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant afresh in accordance with law taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case including the gravity of the offence.

In Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

In the result, we order that the appellants be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the following conditions:-

(a) The appellants shall 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 to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

(b) They shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel.

(c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.

(d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the learned Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.

(e) We reserve liberty to CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/ recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court.

The petitioner alongwith co-accused in above three cases has cheated 108 youths and collected Rs. 1,82,73,000/- from them for providing jobs. The petitioner in the petitions has stated that except the condition of furnishing two local sureties of the like amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, the petitioner undertakes to abide by all other conditions i.e. (i) to (vii) mentioned in the operative part of order passed by learned Sessions Judge in each case. It means, the grievance of the petitioner is only with respect to local sureties and not the quantum of amount. The petitioner has stated that she is a resident of Assam and not in a position to furnish two local sureties. She does not know anyone in District Kangra. It is impossible for the petitioner to furnish two local sureties in all the three cases. There is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner that she being resident of Assam is not in a position to arrange local sureties. In these circumstances, the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge to the petitioner in three cases on the condition to furnish two local sureties is illusory. In bail application No. 19-G/XXII/2012 dated 11.5.2012, the learned Sessions Judge has also put the condition that petitioner will disclose her residential address to I.O. in written manner situated within district Kangra (H.P.). The petitioner cannot comply this condition inasmuch as according to her stand, she is not resident of District Kangra, rather her stand is that she is resident of Assam. This stand of petitioner has not been contradicted by the respondent. The condition of two local sureties in each bail order is liable to be modified.

In view of above, each impugned order is modified, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 216 dated 4.12.2011 registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, FIR No. 186 dated 1.12.2011 registered at Police Station Dehra and FIR No. 163 dated 19.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Dehra, on her furnishing in each FIR personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. 10 lakhs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. subject to following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall join investigation of case as and when directed by police in accordance with law.

ii) The petitioner shall not leave District Kangra without previous permission of the court till conclusion of trial.

iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or any Police Officer.

iv) The petitioner shall not hamper investigation and trial in any manner.

v) The petitioner will attend trial of case regularly and exemption will be sought in accordance with law.

vi) That applicant will maintain utmost decency in her behaviour till conclusion of trial.

vii) The petitioner shall maintain absolute peaceful and lawful conduct till the conclusion of trial.

viii) The petitioner will not dispute her identity as the accused in the case.

ix) The petitioner shall surrender her passport if not already surrendered and in case she is not holder of the same, the petitioner shall swear to an affidavit.

The observations made hereinabove are for the disposal of these petitions and shall not be construed as an expression over the merits of the case.

Copy dasti.