Basant Kumar vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Basant Kumar Thapa son of Tul Bahadur Thapa, has directed the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his son Sonu (main accused), vide FIR No. 71 dated 02.06.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 465, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC, by the police of Police Station Phase-XI, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

Precisely, the prosecution claimed in para No. 6 of the status report that, the petitioner was having a joint account with his son Sonu and an amount of Rs. 4,81,883/- was stated to have been transferred to his account from the account of complainant company. No other specific role or overt-act is attributed to the petitioner. All the main allegations of indicated offences are assigned to his son Sonu (main accused) (non-petitioner). Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- has already been returned to the complainant company by the accused.

Not only that, during the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Rekha Mittal, J.) on August 14, 2013 :-

Through the present petition, the petitioner prays for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No. 71 dated 02.06.2013, under Sections 379, 406, 465, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Phase XI, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

Counsel for the petitioner submits that son of the petitioner Sonu Thapa has been indicted in the crime on the allegations that he along with Shova Gurung, the employees of the company of the complainant had stolen certain cheques and forged the digital signatures of Director and transferred funds of the company in the names of their relatives. It is further submitted that FIR does not make reference to number of cheques, their particulars and the amount withdrawn from the accounts of the company. It is further submitted that as per First Information Report, an amount of Rs. 18 lakhs has already been returned. The last submission made by counsel is that the present petitioner has been implicated in the crime as he lodged an FIR No. 65 dated 30.05.2013 against the complainant in regard to wrongful confinement of Sonu Thapa and his friend.

Notice of motion for 22.10.2013.

Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, though not a party in the petition.

In the meantime, petitioner is directed to join investigation within seven days and on his appearance before the Investigating/Arresting officer, he will be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned officer, subject to the following conditions:-

i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) he 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(iii) he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

At this stage, on instructions from ASI Balraj Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. He is no longer required for further interrogation. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by virtue of order dated 14.08.2013, by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency, failing which the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this Court.