Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 119 of 2020, dated 19.8.2020, registered at Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Status report has been filed, which is ordered to be taken on record.

Allegation against the petitioner is that one Sh. Pratap Dhajrma (complainant) had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for supply of skilled and unskilled labour alongwith mules for carrying fuel wood from the jungle area (Shagotidhar). In terms of the said agreement, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ - (rupees five lacs only) to the petitioner through cheque. This was followed by another payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs only) allegedly by the complainant to the petitioner. As, despite receipt of said money, services as promised by the petitioner to the complainant were not provided, the complainant lodged the present FIR against the petitioner for defrauding him. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 27.11.2021.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations which have been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner are totally false and manufactured and petitioner is, in fact, not guilty of the said allegations. He has further argued that even otherwise the dispute is purely civil in nature and filing of the present FIR is an attempt to arm twist the petitioner to pay money to the complainant. He has further submitted that petitioner happens to be a local resident of Village Gharodu, Tehsil Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P., charge-sheet stands filed and trial is in progress, statements of the prosecution witnesses is being recorded, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by retaining the petitioner in custody and moreover in the event of release of petitioner on bail, he will abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing the bail petition, Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the factum of the petitioner having duped the complainant of huge amount and further taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner as also the fact that he happens to be a local resident of the area, there is every possibility that if released on bail he will hamper the trial by influencing the prosecution witnesses whose statements are still to be recorded. On these basis, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the documents of the police file as well as the status report.

The background in which the FIR has been registered has already been mentioned herein above. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 27.11.2021. Status report further demonstrates that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are being recorded and next date fixed for this purpose is 25.4.2022.

Be that as it may, taking into consideration the totality of the background of this case, this Court is of the considered view that no purpose is going to be served by retaining the petitioner in further custody. As far as the apprehension which has been raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that if released on bail the petitioner may influence the witnesses, the same can be taken care of by the Court by imposing stringent conditions upon the petitioner while releasing him on bail, with further liberty reserved to the State to move appropriate application for recalling the bail granted to the petitioner, in case the petitioner involves in any such activities or infringes any of the conditions, by moving appropriate application in the present proceedings itself.

Accordingly the petition is allowed by ordering the release of the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 119 of 2020, dated 19.8.2020, registered at Police Station Rampur, Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on his furnishing personal bail bond to the tune of `25,000/- (rupees twenty-five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today, subject to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

iii) He shall not 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 the Court or the Police Officer; and

iv) He shall not leave the territory of this Country without the prior permission of the trial Court.

It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail petition and learned trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the course of the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with any of the conditions, which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail.

At this stage, the Court is apprised that in terms of the directions issued by Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(rupees two lacs only) with this Court. Let the amount be kept with the Registry of this Court by converting the same into an FDR and parties shall be at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing appropriate application for release of the same after the trial is over.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order and counsel for the petitioner can download this order alongwith case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.