Sarmad vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Instant petition has been moved for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in FIR No.162/2017, dated 02.08.2017,

registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

Interim protection was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 09.02.2021, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the status report, which is taken on record.

The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sanjay Kumar, the gist of which was, that one Pankaj Sharma of Rurki District

Haridwar had expressed his intention to the complainant for purchasing some land from Smt. Kashmiri Devi against payment of 2% commission and

requested the petitioner to facilitate the land deal. The complainant accepted the request and acted in furtherance thereto. He contacted Smt.

Kashmiri Devi for purchasing the land. Smt.Kashmiri Devi projected that she had purchased the land from the bail petitioner. The land situated in

Tehsil Rurki District Haridwar was stated to be around 15 bigha. The land was agreed to be purchased for about Rs.4,35,00,000/-. On request of

Pankaj Sharma, the complainant inspected the land actually owned by the bail petitioner. In the process of negotiating the purchase of the land, the

complainant statedly paid Rs.10,00,000/- to Smt. Kashmiri Devi and Rs.2.80,00,00/-to an advocate by the name of Sh. Sanjeev. Subsequent thereto

Pankaj Sharma stopped receiving the complainant’s telephone calls. Apprehending that he might have been duped of his money, the complainant

inspected the revenue entries and came to know that the petitioner was not the exclusive owner of the land in question. Realizing that he has been

duped, petitioner lodged a complaint with the police on the basis of which, instant FIR was registered on 2.8.2017 at police station Kullu.

Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the offences with which the petitioner

has been charged are serious and that the petitioner had been evading the investigation, resultantly, proclamation notice had to be issued against him in

December 2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no privity of contract executed between Smt. Kashmiri Devi and the

complainant Sanjay Kumar. He was neither a party to the agreement to sell nor signed any document at the time of the execution of the agreement in

question. The petitioner was not present during negotiations stated to have been held between the contracting parties. Learned counsel further submits

that Smt. Kashmiri Devi had approached the petitioner for purchasing the land situated in village Khatakheri, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee,

District Haridwar and one agreement to sell was executed on 18.5.2017, whereunder she agreed to buy the land measuring 1.024 hectare out of the

total land measuring 2.1142 hectare i.e. 15 bigha out of 26.5 bigha. However, she did not abide by the terms mentioned in the agreement and also did

not pay the sale consideration amount mentioned in the agreement. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner became aware of registration

of FIR in question only in January 2021, when police visited his place with proclamation notice. Subsequent thereto he joined the investigation and has

been cooperating with the investigating agency. His application for anticipatory bail has been turned down by the learned Sessions Judge Kullu on

19.1.2021.

As per the status report, the petitioner has complied with the conditions imposed in the order dated 9.02.2021 and joined the investigation. The

record appended with the petition as well as the status report reflect that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are primarily of civil nature. The

complainant has not levelled any direct allegation against the petitioner. At this stage, it cannot be held that the petitioner is guilty of duping the

complainant for an amount of Rs.12,80,000/ -. The main accused Smt. Kashmiri Devi is stated to have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court

on 16.5.2018. Status report does not indicate any previous criminal antecedents of the petitioner. It is also not the case of respondents that subsequent

to grant of interim protection, the petitioner had tried to temper the prosecution evidence or influenced the prosecution witnesses. The FIR is of year

2017. To secure the presence of the bail petitioner during trial, stringent conditions are being imposed upon him.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the mode and manner of commission of offences alleged against the petitioner, no fruitful

purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to judicial custody, hence, the present petition is allowed and the interim order passed on 09.02.2021 is

made absolute, subject to following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

He shall fully cooperate the Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the concerned police station as and when called in

accordance with law;

(ii). Petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever. Petitioner shall not threaten

or intimidate the complainant.

(iii). Petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court;

(iv). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person

acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

(v). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial.

Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of their Aadhar Card,

Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Numbers, if any; &

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the main matter without being influenced by the above observations.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.