Mohammad Hamid vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition has been preferred, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 47

of 2020, dated 11.2.2020, registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC, in Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P.

Status report stands filed.

According to the status report, on 11.2.2020, one Gurpeet Singh resident of Village Kola, Tehsil Ranbirsinghpura, District Jammu had submitted a

written application, stating therein that they had been cheated by Pooja Chaudhary and Rahat Ali Jafari (petitioner) on the pretext of providing job and

he had also given details of 6 persons, who had paid lacks of rupees to accused persons. Finding prima facie commission of cognizable and non

bailable offence, Pooja Chaudhary and Rahat Ali (petitioner) were arrested on the same day and during investigation room in the hotel, occupied by

Polja Chaudhary, was searched and from the suitcase of Pooja Chaudhary, appointment letters issued to Gurpreet Singh, Mohan Lal Dube and

Raghav Hira, purported to have been issued by All India Radio Akahvani Bhawan Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001, were recovered. These

letters were having stamps of Parsar Bharti Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi and Director General Akashvani Bhawan New Delhi. Photocopies of

certificates of some persons, including complainant, were also found in the suitcase of Pooja Chaudhary. Petitioner Rahat Ali was found to be

Chairman of Tucsi Foundation and Tucsi Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd., registered with Registrar of Companies, Jammu.

As per status report, on the basis of disclosure statement of Pooja Chaudhary, during her custody, Rs.1,77,000/- were recovered from the drawer of

her bed, situated at Avtar Camp Ramgarh (Samba) Jammu and she further disclosed that remaining amount, through a person Jitender Singh alias

Lucky, had been transferred by her to the account of Mohd. Hameed and the appointment letters were issued by that Mohd. Hameed only. On

7.3.2020 Mohd. Hameed was apprehended and arrested from Punchh (J&K).

According to Police Pooja Chaudhary had disclosed transfer of about Rs.15.5 lacs to the account of Hameed. Jitinder Singh had endorsed the

version of Pooja Chaudhary and had disclosed his Current and Saving Account numbers, through which amounts of Rs.8.5 laccs and Rs.7 lacs,

respectively were transferred to the account of Hameed and his version was also corroborated on perusal of account statements received from J&K

Bank Jammu.

As per status report, petitioner Mohammad Hanif was arrested on 7.3.2020 from Punchh and during his custody, through his brother Javed Iqbal, he

had produced Rs.1,15,000/-, which were concealed by him in his house and he had further disclosed that appointment letters, given by him to Pooja

Chaudhary, were signed by him and stamps thereon, were also put by him and stamps were burnt by him.

According to status report, co-accused Pooja Chaudhary and petitioner Mohammad Hameed had received Rs.42,50,000/- in total, from different

persons, on the pretext of providing job, out of which Rs.16,00,000/- were returned by Pooja Chaudhary to complainant party.

It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner Rahat Ali was conducting counseling programme/meetings of the persons

who were allured by Mohd Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary to provide job in Government Departments in Himachal Pradesh and he has been found

involved in the conspiracy of commission of offence with Mohd. Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary under Section 120B IPC. Challan has been presented

in the Court of ACJM on 6.4.2020.

During investigation specimen handwriting and signatures of co-accused Pooja Chaudhary and petitioner Mohammad Hamid and Laptop, e-mails

and specimen signatures alongwith questioned documents have been for analysis to State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga, result whereof

is awaited. It is stated in the status report that call details of accused persons, bank details of petitioner Mohammad Hanif and co-accused Pooja

Chaudhary are yet to be obtained, which could not be obtained because of restriction on inter-State transportation, on account of COVID-10

Pandemic.

It is also reported that co-accused Pooja Chaudhary has been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide judgment dated 15.6.2020 passed in CRMPM

No.571 of 2020, whereas co-accused Rahat Ali was enlarged on bail vide judgment dated 7.10.2020 passed in CRMPM No.998 of 2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish local surety and also undertakes to abide by any condition

imposed by the Court in case he is enlarged on bail.

Without going into merits of the case, as accusation against the petitioner is yet to be proved and the fact that he is custody since March, 2020, at

this stage, he may also be released on bail.

Therefore, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the present case, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

sureties in the like amount, one of which, as undertaken by the petitioner, shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of trial Court, within three weeks

from today, subject to following 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 he 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 he 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) he 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. It shall be open for the trial Court to impose any other condition, as

deemed necessary, upon the petitioner, independent of prayer of prosecution.

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/93-

IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

It is made clear that enlargement of petitioner on bail shall not entitle the co-accused to release them on bail on sole ground of parity, but their

cases are to be considered and decided, if any application is preferred by them, on its own merit and status report of the prosecution filed therein.

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

the bail application.

The petitioner is 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, he may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid