Chanchal Kumar vs State of H.P.

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioners, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release

in case FIR No. 45 of 2017, dated 27.3.2017, under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ""IPC"") and Section

13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station, Barotiwala, Police District Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are

residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice.

Police report stands filed. As per the investigation conducted by the police, the retail liquor licencees have been procuring liquor from HPBL

Depot and opened depots at various parts across the State including one at BBNDA Baddi, District Solan. The allegations against the accused are

that being retail liquor licencees conspired and connived with their co-accused Ankush Chauhan, posted as Assistant Depot Manager at HPBL,

Depot Baddi, located at BBNDA Baddi and purchased the liquor on credit basis, due to which an amount of Rs.3,22,51,948/- remains

recoverable from them. The petitioners indulged in criminal acts against the provisions of Liquor Sales Policy for 2016-2017 of HPBL, wherein the

credit sale is not permissive. The petitioners violated the provisions 4.1 of the Liquor Sales Policy for 2016-17, thereby causing huge losses to the

State exchequer. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed.

Heard. Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are behind the bars since

long, therefore, no purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars. He has also relied upon the judgment passed in Cr. MP (M) No.40 of

2018, titled Devya Dhingra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 22.1.2018. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General has

argued that in case, the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and also flee from justice, so the present is

a fit case where the bail is required to be dismissed.

I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police record in detail.

At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that it is a financial loss of the State Government and also taking into consideration the overall

facts, which have come on record, this Court finds that in case, petitioners are released on bail, they will tamper with prosecution evidence and

there is every likelihood that the petitioners will flee from justice. Further, the investigation in this case still continuing. So, the interest of justice do

not demand that the petitioners be released on bail. There is a prima facie case against the petitioners, taking into consideration the manner, in

which, the offence is committed and that the petitioners are likely to flee from justice, the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the

judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour.

The petitions, which sans merit, deserves dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.