Bhuvan Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 35 of 2022, dated 25.2.2022, registered in Police Station, Manpura Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120 B of the indian Penal Code.

Status report stands filed. Record was also made available.

Prosecution case is that complainant Umesh Singh , on behalf of U.S Industries, submitted two applications on 24.2.2022 and on 25.2.2022, complaining supply of fraudulent and fake ‘No Objection Certificates’, against one Akash Kumar Srivastava with request to register FIR and take appropriate action against him.

After registration of FIR, investigation was initiated. Genuineness of Certificate provided by Akash Srivastava to M/s U.S Industries was verified from the offices of concerned Fire Station and Pollution Control Board wherefrom written reports were received informing that those documents were not issued by their respective office(s) and, therefore, the documents were found fake.

During investigation, Akash Srivastava, named accused, was found to have been arrested on 4.3.2022 in another Case FIR No.27 of 2022 dated 28.1.2022, under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C in Police Station Baddi and in police remand till 5.3.2022. On 5.3.2022, his custody was transferred to present case.

During interrogation, Akash Srivastava disclosed that he had only prepared the application on behalf of M/s U.S Industries to IDS for subsidy and had prepared other documents alongwith his companion Bhuvan Kumar. Bhuvan Kumar was also arrested on 5.3.2022, in present case.

During interrogation, Bhuvan Kumar disclosed that main accused Akash Srivastava who was working in the name and style ‘ Akash Consultants’, was introduced to owner of M/s U.S Industries by him and as U.S Industries Company was entitled for subsidy from the Government but subject to furnishing ‘No Objection Certificates’ from concerned Fire Station and Pollution Control Board, Akash Srivastava was engaged for obtaining the certificate for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/­ and M/s U.S. Industries made payment of Rs. 40,000/­ in cash and remaining payment through Bank for the said purpose and as per petitioner it was only Akash Srivastava who was knowing about the place where fake documents were prepared.

Prosecution case is that Rs.2,00,000/­ was paid to Bhuvan Kumar and Akash Srivastava by complainant for obtaining NOCs as per law, by transferring Rs.1,60,000/­, on different dates, to the account of petitioner Bhuvan Kumar and paying Rs.40,000/­ in cash as advance money in March, 2021. Out of this amount of Rs.2,00,000/­, Bhuvan Kumar transferred Rs.99,300/­ to Akash Srivastava, whereas Rs.1,00,700/­ were kept by Bhuvan Kumar for himself.

As per status report, for preparation of fake N.O.C of Fire Department as well as Pollution Control Board, Akash Srivastava and Bhuvan Kumar are accusing each other. It has been further stated that Laptop in use of Bhuvan Kumar has been taken in possession from his brother­in­law Kanhiya. It has been further stated that Printer having Company Model H.P. DESK Jet INK Advantage 3835 and mobile phone being used by also in use of Bhuvan Kumar, alleged to have been used for preparation of forged documents and sending whatsapp to complainant have also been recovered and seized by the Police. Investigating Agency has also collected Call Detail Record as well as Bank Account Record with respect to transfer of amount from complainant M/s U.S Industries to account of Bhuvan Kumar and Bhuvan Kumar to Akash Srivastva.

It has been further stated in the status report that file related to fake documents has been found in the Laptop of Akash Srivastava and transmission of fake Certificate has been found through his mobile. All these instruments have been sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.

Complainant, Umesh Singh attended the Court on 3.6.2022 and had endorsed refund of Rs.2,00,000/­ i.e Rs. 1,00,000/­ each from Bhuvan Kumar and Akash Srivastava by way of bank transfer and he has also issued a receipt thereof, communicating compromise between parties and receipt of the amount.

It has also been submitted that petitioner is behind the Bars since last more than three months as undertrial prisoner whereas complainant after receiving his amount is not interested to continue with the criminal proceedings and, therefore, prevailing circumstances are in favour of enlargement the petitioner on bail.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that present case is not a ordinary case but it is a case where while supplying Fake Fire Certificates alleging to be issued by Fire Station and Pollution Control Board, petitioner has put life of hundreds of labourers and customers in danger and, therefore, it is not an offence against individual but society at large causing danger of life to hundreds of workers of not only factory but also adjoining houses and Industries etc and, therefore, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled for bail in present case.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that role of the petitioner is limited to introduce Akash Srivastav to the complainant and further that for providing work to Akash Srivastava he had charged his commission but not for providing fake and false certificates. It has been further submitted that role of petitioner as alleged in the status report is very limited and he has no involvement or role in commission of offence of preparing fake and forged documents which were produced and supplied by co­accused Akash Srivastava and further that petitioner was not having knowledge of managing/obtaining /preparing fake certificates by co­ accused and if he would have knowledge then he would have never associated him.

It has also been contended on behalf of respondent that Akash Srivastava is accused for commission of similar offence in case FIR No.27 of 2022 and the petitioner is not co­accused therein, and in present case amount has been refunded on behalf of petitioner for the reason that petitioner had retained it as commission for genuine certificates but not for fake certificates and he does not want to harass anybody because of him, and as Akash Srivastava was introduced by him to the complainant and, therefore, considering his moral responsibilities, he has returned Rs.1,00,000/­ retained by him. Further that remaining Rs.1,00,000/­ has also been refunded by co­ accused Akash Srivastava as has been admitted by complainant Umesh Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co­ accused Akash Srivastav has been enlarged on bail by Co­ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.5.2022 passed in CRMP (M) No.881 of 2022 , titled as Akash Srivastav Vs. State of H.P. and it has been further submitted that guilt of the accused is yet to be established by proving the evidence by the prosecution in the trial Court and referring pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018)3 Supreme Court Cases 22, it has been contended that untill and unless petitioner is held guilty by the Competent Court, beyond reasonable doubt, by proving the evidence, he has to be believed to be innocent and, thus, he could not be kept behind the Bars for indefinite period and petitioner who has completed about three months in the jail, is entitled for bail.

It has further been submitted that in case of his enlargement on bail, the petitioner is ready to furnish local surety and also to abide by any condition that may be imposed upon him at the time of release.

Taking into consideration facts and circumstances as well as material placed before me, and also role of petitioner, but without commenting on merits thereof, and considering parameters and factors necessary for consideration of bail application as propounded by the Supreme Court, I find that in present case petitioner may be enlarged on bail, at this stage.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/­ with two sureties, each in the like amount, out of which one surety, as undertaken by the petitioner, should be local surety and other should be of close relative of the petitioner, to the satisfaction of trial Court, upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure presence of petitioner/accused at the time of trial and also subject to following further conditions:­

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner 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 Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that the petitioner shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93­IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

The parties permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.