Tamana Bedi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The matter is taken up through video conference.

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking her release, in the

event of her arrest, in case FIR No. 101 of 2020, dated 21.06.2020, under Sections 403 and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered

in Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is permanent resident

District Solan, H.P. and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be

served by sending her behind the bars, so she be released on bail.

Police reports stand filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 21.06.2020 police received a written complaint from Shri

Pratyush Chauhan, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharmshala (complainant), which was ordered to be investigated. The said complaint

sought lodging and initiating apt criminal proceedings against the officers and officials of Sarvmanglam Co-operative Society Limited, Dharamshala,

H.P. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called as “Societyâ€). Precisely, the allegations against the officers and officials of the said Society were

of embezzlement and misappropriation of the funds generated through common people/investors. The above said complaint, descriptively mentioned

the different amounts embezzled or misappropriated, qua which there is no receipt or bill voucher available on the records of the Society. The officers

and officials of the said Society also changed or altered the entries in the office computers and there is complete mismatch in the physical records and

the computerized records. The above said complaint also elicited the names and mobile numbers of the employees of the said Society and ultimately

sought an apt action against the real culprit(s). Upon the said complaint, so received by the police, police machinery was set into motion, which initially

culminated into registration of an FIR, whereafter investigation ensued. Police procured all the records qua the registration of the said Society and

photocopy of the audit report was also taken into possession. Bank accounts statements of the said Society, were procured, which revealed that w.e.f.

03.08.2019 to 09.07.2020 the said accounts had zero balance. On 10.07.2020 police visited the premises of the said Society for interrogating the

employees of the said Society, but the premises were found locked. Police came to know that co-accused Sucharu Bedi, Anmol Kumar and Tamana

Bedi (petitioner herein), in order to evade their arrest, filed their respective anticipatory bail applications before the Court of lowest rung and the

learned Court ordered them to join the investigation and co-operate in it. Despite the said order of the learned Court, the above named accused

persons and also the petitioner did not join the investigation, so the learned Court dismissed their bail applications. In fact, the accused persons and the

petitioner tried tooth and nail to avoid their arrest and they all went underground. As per the police, some of the records have been procured by the

police and rest is yet to be obtained. Cumulatively, as has come in the initial investigation, approximately an amount of rupees four crore has been

embezzled by the accused persons, including the petitioner. The investigation is in its preliminary stage and being financial crime, a lot of records are to

be examined. As per the police, owing to prevailing pandemic of COVID-19, the investigation is sluggish. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of

the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, thereafter, despite the orders of learned Trial Court, she did not join

the investigation and instead evaded her arrest. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, she may flee from

justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, as the investigation is in its initial stage, so her bail application be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the

police reports, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is no more Secretary of the said Society and she may be released on bail. He

has further argued that no embezzlement occurred during the stint of the petitioner, as Secretary. He has argued that the petitioner is permanent

resident of District Solan, H.P., so she is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful

purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as nothing is to be recovered from her and her custody is not at all required by the

police, so in the wake of the above submissions, the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the

learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner, who was working as Secretary of the said Society, was, in fact, during the course

of the investigation of the police, found hand in glove in the alleged embezzlement and in case she is set free, she will not co-operate in the

investigation and there is possibility that she may not hand over the apt records pertaining to the Society, which is lying with her, to the police. He has

further argued that in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, the investigation will hamper and will not be carried out properly, so the

custody of the petitioner is required by the police for investigating the matter. Lastly, he has prayed that the bail application be dismissed.

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper

with the prosecution evidence, as she is permanent resident of District Solan, H.P. He has further argued that no purpose will be served by sending

the petitioner behind the bars, as the petitioner is innocent and her custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, so the petition may be

allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, after careful examination of the available records, it is discernible that a Co-operative Society was formed and the petitioner herein

was working as its Secretary and co-accused Sucharu Bedi was its President. Considering the fact that more than rupees two crores were not

deposited by the said Society in the Bank account, which money belongs to poor people of the area, thus the said amount was not safely kept by the

Society, for which the said Society was formed and keeping money of common people was its one of the chief objects. This Court also considers the

fact that the original records of the Society is not available with the investigating agency, so the investigating agency is handicapped to proceed with

the investigation without the unavailability of the original records and the investigation cannot be carried out properly. Also considering the other facets

of the case, viz., involvement of the huge amount in the matter, the earlier attempts being made by the petitioner to evade her arrest, despite the orders

of the learned Trial Court to join and co-operate in the investigation, the fact that the investigation is in its initial stage and voluminous records are to be

examined, which is lying with the petitioner, and also considering the different aspects of the case and without discussing the same elaborately, at this

stage, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in her

favour, as there is also the possibility that in case at this stage, if she is enlarged on bail, she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also

flee from justice.

In view of the above, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.