Nepal Sharma vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Having exercised his right of anticipatory bsail and lost in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Petitioner Nepal Sharma son of Mohan Lal, has directed the present petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him and his co-accused Gajraj, vide FIR No. 431 dated 27.7.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Faridabad Central, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court (Gurdev Singh, J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 30.8.2010:

Heard.

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it were the present Petitioner and the complainant in whose favour the agreement, in question, was executed and as such there was no question of the Petitioner playing fraud on the complainant and that he also suffered at the hands of the vendors.

Notice of motion for 25.10.2010.

In the meanwhile, in the case of arrest of the Petitioner, in the FIR mentioned in the petition, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:

i He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer;

ii He shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and

iii He shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.

At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Mohinder Singh, has submitted that the Petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. What is not disputed here is that the Petitioner is a proposed co-vendee of the complainant. Whether the offences alleged against the Petitioner are attracted to the facts of the present case would be a moot point to be decided by the trial Court at the time of trial. All the offences alleged against the Petitioner are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the Petitioner in any such case.

So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present Petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case.

Consequently, it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) he 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) he will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that in case, the Petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of his bail, in this relevant connection.