Ms. Pooja Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Hon''ble Justice V.K. Sharma

Heard. Investigation record produced and perused.

The petitioner, Ms. Pooja Sharma along with five other co-accused, namely, Mohit Sharma, Subhash Chand, Rulia Ram alias Raju, Praveen Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, is accused of commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 120B IPC, as per FIR No. 170/2011, dated 24.6.2011, registered at Police Station, Palampur on the complaint of one Dr. Rajeev Bedi.

Briefly stated the allegations against the petitioner are that while her mother was under treatment at Fortis Hospital, Mohali, Punjab, she came in contact with the complainant, Dr. Rajeev Bedi. She is alleged to have actuated him to start a nursing institute somewhere near Palampur in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is further alleged that she posed herself to be an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer posted in Himachal Pradesh which in fact she is not. She is said to have assured the complainant that she would be of great help in buying land for the aforesaid institute. Thus, she is said to have actuated the complainant to pay Rs. 45 lac to her, that is, Rs. 22 lac in cash directly paid to her, another Rs. 22 lac paid to her through co-accused Subhash Chand and the remainder Rs. 1 lac by way of a cheque issued in the name of Ishwar Chand, who according to the prosecution is in fact co-accused Subhash Chand, whose name was given by the petitioner to the complainant as Ishwar Chand.

According to the petitioner, she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Apart from other usual averments, she has undertaken to abide by any other condition imposed by the Court in case she is admitted to bail before arrest.

The prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the prosecution mainly on the ground that apart from some documents, the aforesaid sums of money and the cheque are to be recovered from her.

After noticing brief facts of the case and the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties and without going into an elaborate discussion of the same, so as to obviate the possibility of any prejudice being caused to either case on behalf of the parties, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that all other co-accused have already been arrested and thereafter released on bail and final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against them for trial in the concerned Court, the petitioner is required by the police for custodial investigation, especially with regard to the money involved in the entire transaction around which the prosecution case revolves and documentary evidence connected therewith. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.