Sandeep Shah vs State Of H.P.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner, through his wife has approached this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking bail

in case FIR No.198 of 2020 dated 19.09.2020, registered in Police Station Boileauganj (Shimla West) under Sections 376, 506 and 417 of the Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ in short).

As per status report, complainant had approached Police Chowki Fagu, Shimla, where her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded,

wherein she has stated that she had been serving as a Human Resource Manager in Limunesh Power Technology Private Limited Company at Baddi

from 2010 to 2019 and w.e.f. 25.11.2019 to 03.06.2020, she had been serving in the same Company at Gurgaon. In August 2018 during her training

sponsored by the Company at Indore (M.P.), she came in contact of petitioner-accused, who was serving as Area Manager in the same Company

and he took her mobile number and started telephonic and whatsapp talks/chats with her and in April 2019 he proposed to marry complainant and the

said proposal was communicated by her to her parents upon which her parents had decided to meet family of petitioner-accused, but petitioner-

accused had stated that his father was not alive and mother had little knowledge of Hindi. As per complaint, from 14.06.2019 to 16.06.2019 petitioner

and complainant had stayed in a Hotel Oyo Restful, Shoghi and there, for the first time, physical relations had developed and such relations continued

till January 2020 as she was under impression that both of them were going to marry. According to complainant, as and when she had been visiting for

training at Gurgaon, petitioner, who was posted at Gurgaon at that time, had been booking Hotel for her, but at the time of issuance of bill, on advise of

the petitioner, she had been taking bill in the name of one person only whereas petitioner had been keeping bills having details of two persons with him

and later on petitioner had made a complaint in the Company for claiming amount on the basis of wrong bills and petitioner had started to threaten her.

Thereafter also, petitioner continued to exploit her physically as on refusal he had been threatening to kill her and to abduct through goons and to

defame her by making her photographs alongwith petitioner viral in public on social media. As per complaint, complainant came to know about marital

status of the petitioner from his neighbour in December 2019. Later on, in the month of March 2020, when complainant was at Chandigarh, she came

to know that petitioner alongwith his wife Mousumi Chakraborty had visited Fagu and declared that complainant was having affair with petitioner and

had alleged that she had taken a sum of  Rs.2,00,000/ - from the petitioner and thereafter petitioner had started to defame her and post photographs

of both (complainant and petitioner) on social media like Facebook, Instagram and Linkedin and when she was at Chandigarh, petitioner, through

someone had publicized prints of her photographs and documents in Fagu Bazaar.

On the basis of area of commission of offence, statement of the complainant was transferred to Police Station Boileauganj and on the basis of

which FIR has been registered in Police Station Boileauganj. During investigation, in search of petitioner, police had visited Delhi, Gurgaon and

Faridabad. His mother was served with notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner-accused to join investigation on 27.09.2020, but he

did not turn up. Thereafter, w.e.f. 08.10.2020 to 14.10.2020, police team again went Delhi, Gurgaon etc. in search of the petitioner and petitioner was

apprehended on 14.10.2020 and was arrested on 15. 10.2020 from Gurgaon. During investigation, petitioner had disclosed that he and his mother are

permanent resident of 2/21A, Pudranagar, Kolkata-68 and about nine years back he alongwith his mother has shifted to Gurgaon (Haryana) and he

was married to Mousumi Chakraborty in the year 2016 and in the year 2018 he alongwith his mother had purchased a Flat No. G-1402, Florida

Apartment, Sector 82, Nahar Par, Faridabad (Haryana) for consideration of  Rs..22,00,000/- and he is paying installment of  Rs.40,000/- per month

for that.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that marital status of petitioner was well known to the complainant since beginning and she had been

constantly interfering and creating nuisance in his family life and petitioner had already initiated legal action against the complainant before registration

of present FIR and present FIR is a counter blast to that and petitioner since first meeting with the complainant had made it clear to the complainant

that he was married and not interested in furthering the acquaintance beyond friendship, but complainant kept on alluring, mentally pressurizing and

using his low moments to entangle him in her web of deceit to convince him to develop physical relationship and the booking of Hotels was done

consensually by the parties and complainant, in order to destroy the domestic life of the petitioner had gone to the extent of calling and revealing details

of her physical relations to the petitioner’s wife and mother. Further that complainant was well aware about the marital status of the petitioner. In

order to support contention, print out of whatsapp chat and recording of audio clipping of telephonic conversation between petitioner and complainant

have also been placed on record. It is further stated that petitioner had never intended to marry complainant, however, complainant was forcing the

petitioner to marry her after getting divorced from wife. It is also submitted that petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant and in counter blast thereto, present complaint has been filed to pressurize and harass the

petitioner.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that from the documents placed on record, itself by the petitioner, it is evident that petitioner had

been accompanying the complainant not only to Gurugram and Delhi but also to Agra and Rishikesh and allegation of staying at Shogi is also

substantiated from the Invoices placed on record by the petitioner himself which indicates that relation was more than friendship and further that plea

of the complainant that she came to know about the marital status of the petitioner is substantiated from document Annexure P-5, placed on record on

behalf of the petitioner, which reflects the mental state of complainant, after knowing the truth. He has further submitted that from the record of

chatting, filed with the petition, it can be easily construed that petitioner had been assuring the complainant that even after December, 2019, petitioner

was assuring the complainant that he will be able to get divorce without any difficulty which definitely indicates that relationship was developed by the

petitioner with complainant with assurance to marry.

It has also been submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General that even in response to the notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, complainant had categorically stated that the cheque in question proposed to be given to petitioner for relationship but after knowing

his marital status it was not to be handed over to the petitioner, as complainant was disappointed after knowing the marital status of the petitioner in

December, 2019 and, therefore, payment was stopped. He further submits that in fact, action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is

a counterblast to the complaint made by the complainant to the police at Gurugram.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has also pointed out that from Annexure P-7, the Rent Agreement, it is evident that an accommodation was

taken on rent by the petitioner alongwith complainant, with effect from 1.1.2020 to 30.11.2020, for 11 months and the said agreement was signed

jointly by petitioner alongwith complainant which also substantiates plea of the complainant that petitioner had been assuring to marry her and to

substantiate such assurance by creating an impression in the mind of complainant, petitioner appears to have entered into Rent Agreement jointly

alongwith complainant.

Lastly, learned Deputy Advocate General has also submitted that petitioner-accused has been apprehended with great difficulty as his permanent

address is not known and, therefore, in absence of local surety, it would be difficult to ascertain his presence during trial. Whereas, learned counsel for

the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a permanent resident of Flat No. G-1402, Florida Apartment, Sector 82, Nahar Par, Faridabad (Haryana),

which has been purchased by him alongwith his wife Mousumi Chakraborty and further that he has responsibility to support his family, therefore, he

cannot abscond from the trial and further that petitioner is also ready to furnish local surety and to abide by any other condition imposed by the Court

in case he is enlarged on bail.

Challan has been presented in the Court on 7. 12.2020.

Without commenting upon merit of the case, rival contentions of the parties and keeping in view entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am

of the opinion that at this stage, petitioner is entitled for bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.198 of 2020 dated 19. 09.2020, registered in Police

Station Boileauganj (Shimla West), under Sections 376, 506 and 417 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of  Rs.1,00,000/- with two

sureties, one of which shall be local surety as undertaken by and on behalf of the petitioner, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial

Court within three weeks from today, upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions

enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure the presence of petitioner/accused at the time of trial and also 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 them 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 the petitioner 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; and

(vii) that he shall not leave the territory of India without prior information. He shall inform the Police/Court his contact number and shall keep on

informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in future.

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 and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any

other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any condition 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.

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.

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.

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the trial Court through E-mail.