Duni Chand vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This judgment shall dispose of Cr. MP (M) Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 184 of 2012 filed by Duni Chand, Dinesh Kapoor, Kuldeep Rao and Shivender Batish, respectively u/s 439 Cr. P.C. for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 60 of 2011 dated 24.5.2011 registered at Police Station, East, Shimla, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC. Cr. MP (M) No. 180 of 2012:

It has been stated that on 24.5.2011 police arrested Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao in the above case. On 28.5.2011 Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao were ordered to be released on bail by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Shimla. On 1.6.2011 the High Court took suo-motu cognizance against the order dated 28.5.2011. The police arrested the petitioner on 3.6.2011. On 29.6.2011 the High Court set-aside the order releasing Haresh Sood and Kuldeep Rao on bail. The petitioner was released on bail by Sessions Judge on 13.7.2011. The High Court again suo-motu took up the matter against the order of Sessions Judge releasing the petitioner on bail. On 16.8.2011 the High Court set-aside the order granting bail to the petitioner. The petitioner filed petition before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court but the same was subsequently withdrawn. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail before the trial Court. The petitioner filed bail application which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. 2. The police after completion of investigation submitted the challan. The case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Shimla. The petitioner and others have been charged for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC on 25.2.2012.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 227 days till 21.3.2012. The trial will take some time. No purpose will be served for keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

Cr. MP (M) No. 181 of 2012:

The petitioner has pleaded facts almost on the lines of Cr. MP (M) No. 180 of 2012. It has been stated that petitioner was arrested on 3.6.2011 and petitioner was released on bail by the Sessions Judge on 13.7.2011. The High Court took suo-motu action against order dated 13.7.2011 releasing the petitioner on bail. On 16.8.2011 the High Court set-aside the order dated 13.7.2011 granting bail to the petitioner. The petitioner filed petition in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court but that petition was subsequently withdrawn. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail before the trial Court. The petitioner filed bail application u/s 439 Cr. P.C. which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

The police after completion of investigation submitted challan in the Court and the case is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Shimla. The petitioner and other accused have been charged for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC on 25.2.2012.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 227 days till 21.3.2012. The trial will take some time. No purpose will be served for keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

Cr. MP (M) No. 182 of 2012:

It has been stated that allegations against the petitioner and other accused are that they have prepared a fake judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. On these allegations, a case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 472 IPC has been registered at Police Station, East, Shimla vide FIR No. 60 dated 24.5.2011. The petitioner was arrested on 25.5.2011. The petitioner was released on bail by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Shimla on 28.5.2011. The High Court on its own motion cancelled the bail granted to petitioner. The petitioner surrendered to the police on 2.7.2011. The petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Judge on 18.7.2011. The High Court took suo-motu action against order dated 18.7.2011 in Cr. MMO No. 130 of 2011 and the bail granted to the petitioner was set-aside by the High Court on 16.8.2011.

The petitioner filed petition before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court which was withdrawn with liberty to apply for bail before an appropriate Court. The petitioner surrendered before the trial Court on 17.9.2011 and is in custody since then. The petitioner filed Cr. MP (M) No. 1003 of 2011 for releasing him on bail which was dismissed on 14.12.2011 by the High Court. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 206 days till 21.3.2012.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent. It has been submitted that charge has been framed. The trial will take some time. No purpose will be served for keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

Cr. MP (M) No. 184 of 2012

The petitioner has filed the petition by pleading the facts almost on the same lines as in Cr. MP (M) No. 182 of 2011. It has been stated that the petitioner was arrested on 3.6.2011. The petitioner was released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Shimla on 11.7.2011. The High Court took suo-motu action against the order dated 11.7.2011. The High Court in Cr. MMO No. 127 of 2011 on 16.8.2011 set-aside the order dated 11.7.2011 of the Sessions Judge. The petitioner filed petition in the Supreme Court against the order dated 16.8.2011 of the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and the petitioner was given liberty to apply for bail. The petitioner surrendered before the trial Court on 17.9.2011. The petitioner filed Cr. MP (M) No. 1004 of 2011 which was dismissed by the High Court on 14.12.2011. The petitioner is in custody for the last about 203 days till 21.3.2012.

It has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent. It has been submitted that charge has been framed. The trial will take some time. No purpose will be served for keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed in Cr. MP (M) No. 180 of 2012. It has been stated that on 24.4.2011 a source information was received that in 2006 CPMT case a fake judgment of the High Court dated 18.12.2010 has been prepared. On fake judgment in Cr. MMO No. 179 of 2010 title has been typed Ritika Kapoor and others vs. State of H.P. The copy of the judgment was under consideration in the Secretariat for giving benefit to accused Kuldeep Rao, Executive Engineer. On this information, web site of the High Court was checked and regarding Cr. MMO No. 179 of 2010 message displayed was "either judgment not uploaded and the case does not exist". On this FIR No. 60 of 2011 dated 24.5.2011 was registered at Police Station, East, Shimla under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

It has come in the investigation that accused Kuldeep Rao, his daughter Aditi Rao; Shivender Batish, his daughter Ankita Batish; Dinesh Kapoor, his daughter Ritika Kapoor, Duni Chand Yadav and his daughter Kritika Yadav are accused alongwith others in FIR No. 140 of 2006 dated 27.6.2006 under Sections 406, 418, 120B IPC in CPMT case and the case is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. Kuldeep Rao, Shivender Batish, Duni Chand Yadav and Dinesh Kapoor became friends. Dinesh Kapoor contacted his friend Haresh Sood, Advocate regarding CPMT case. Dinesh Kapoor also contacted Kuldeep Rao, Shivender Batish, and Duni Chand Yadav. On 27.10.2010 a meeting was held in which Kuldeep Rao, Shivender Batish, Dinesh Kapoor and Haresh Sood, Advocate participated. Some fee of the Advocate was settled and some amount was paid to Haresh Sood, Advocate. Duni Chand was not present in this meeting.

The judgment in Cr. MMO No. 179 of 2010 titled Ritika Kapoor and others vs. State of H.P. was allegedly reserved on 13.12.2010 and was allegedly decided on 18.12.2010. The seal on the judgment in Cr. MMO No. 179 of 2010 was found to be of the High Court. The red ink writing was found to be written by Haresh Sood. The accused after obtaining the copies of fake judgment appeared through Advocates in the case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. The fake judgment was not brought to the notice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in CPMT case. This indicates conspiracy of the accused. It has come in the investigation that hand written portion showing the attestation of the fake judgment is written either by Haresh Sood, Advocate or his Clerk Udey Ram. It has been stated that in the investigation involvement of Haresh Sood, Shivender Batish, Duni Chand Yadav, Dinesh Kapoor and Udey Ram has been established for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472 and 120B IPC and involvement of accused Kuldeep Rao has been established for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 21.2.2012. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail petitions.

Heard and perused the record. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioners are in custody since long. No laptop/computer has been connected with the petitioners for preparing the fake judgment. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate that Duni Chand and Dinesh Kapoor were not having any laptop and computer. The petitioners have also not been connected with the handwritten writing on the fake judgment. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners have relied Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, . It has been submitted that the petitioners are in custody for last more than 200 days. The charge has been framed on 25.2.2012 and next date of hearing has been fixed on 2.4.2012 for recording PWs 1 to 6. No purpose will be served for keeping the petitioners in jail for indefinite period.

The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra) has held as follows:-

In 2002 (1) PLJR 63 (SC) ) this Court, taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges alleged and the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed including the fact that the appellants were in jail for a period of more than six months as on the date of passing of the order, was of the view that the further detention of the appellants as pretrial prisoners would not serve any purpose.

We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.

The investigation in the case is complete, charge has been framed and the case has been fixed for prosecution evidence. In the status report, no apprehension has been shown that in case the petitioners are released on bail then they will overawe, terrorise the prosecution witnesses. It has also not been stated that in case petitioners are released on bail then they will not be available for trial. The petitioners are in custody for more than 200 days. It is not certain how much time the trial will take. In these circumstances, no purpose will be served for detaining the petitioners in custody for indefinite period. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail.

In view of above, all the petitions being Cr. MP (M) Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 184 of 2012 are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 60 of 2011 dated 24.5.2011 registered at Police Station, East, Shimla, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120-B IPC on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Shimla with the conditions that the petitioners shall not overawe or terrorise the prosecution witnesses and they shall maintain absolute peaceful and lawful conduct during the pendency of the case. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petitions only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.