CRMPM/2728/2022 on 30 December 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.2728 of 2022

Decided on: 30th December, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Praveen Kumar

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

.....Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. J.K. Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate

General with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur,

Assistant Advocate General.

ASI Dev Raj, Police Station Sundernagar,

District Mandi, present in person

alongwith record. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

The petitioner is co-accused in FIR No.15/2022, dated 19.01.2022, registered under Sections 304, 308, 328, 420, 468, 471, 201, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the H.P. Excise Act at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi.

The FIR was registered after seven persons died and fourteen others injured on consuming spurious liquor allegedly manufactured illegally by one Gaurav Minhas in 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?

connivance with certain other accused persons in his illegal liquor plants. The bail petitioner was arrested in the FIR on 22.01.2022 and by means of the instant petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for his enlargement on regular bail.

2. According to the status report:- 2(i). The role of the bail petitioner is in respect of renting out his premises to the co-accused Gaurav Minhas with the knowledge that the said premises will be used by the latter for the manufacture of illegally made spurious liquor. 2(ii). The investigations in the FIR show that the co-accused Gaurav Minhas had been running an unauthorized bottling plant with the help of certain labourers in a residential accommodation/Hotel Rainbow Café owned by the petitioner. During raid of the said bottling plant conducted by the Special Investigation Team of the respondent on 22.01.2022, Praveen Kumar (bail petitioner), Pushpender Singh and Sunny Chaudhary were found present there. In their presence, many cartons of country made spurious liquor and several instruments/articles/appliances/machines/packing material used for manufacture of liquor were recovered

from the premises. The persons present on the spot including the petitioner could not produce any permit or licence regarding the recovered articles. Bail petitioner, Pushpender Singh and Sunny Chaudhary were arrested on 22.01.2022. 2(iii). The investigation in the matter has clearly pointed out that umpteenth number of telephone calls were exchanged between the petitioner and co-accused persons from 19.11.2021 to 20.01.2022. 2(iv). It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigations, a notebook belonging to the co-accused Gaurav Minhas was recovered, wherein, he has mentioned about his financial transactions with the owner of the premises, i.e. the bail petitioner. 2(v). The status report further mentions that a rent deed allegedly executed between the bail petitioner and co-accused Gaurav Minhas was produced by petitioner’s father on 28.01.2022, which records the fact that the bail petitioner had rented out the ground floor of his residential house situated on the National Highway to co-accused Gaurav Minhas for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01.12.2021 at Rs.30,000/- per month. The premises were rented out for the purpose of using them as Store. According to the

respondent, the amount of rent mentioned in the rent deed was many times more than the normal rent prevailing in the area. Further allegations of the respondent are that the petitioner had been residing on the first floor of the premises in question and was very well aware that the accommodation rented out by him to co-accused Gaurav Minhas was being used by him (Gaurav Minhas) for manufacture of illegally made spurious liquor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the FIR by distorting the facts. There was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and co-accused Gaurav Minhas. The rent deed executed between the two categorically states that the ground floor of the petitioner’s premises was rented out to co-accused Gaurav Minhas from 01.12.2021 for a period of 11 months on monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. The premises were let out to be used as store. The petitioner had not connived or worked as conspirator with co-accused Gaurav Minhas in manufacture of spurious liquor. Petitioner did not have any knowledge about the illegal activities alleged to have been caused out in the rented premises. Learned counsel further submitted that the only transactions in the bank account of

the bail petitioner that can be related to the co-accused Gaurav Minhas was on account of advance rent in the sum of Rs.30,000/- per month and remaining Rs.20,000/- was paid to the petitioner in lieu of utensils given to co-accused Gaurav Minhas by the petitioner, which were earlier being used in petitioner’s restaurant. It is further submitted that entire investigation in the matter qua the petitioner is now complete. Nothing remains to be recovered from him. As such, no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner will not jump over the bail. He will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and 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 any police officer.

Learned Assistant Advocate General opposed the bail plea and submitted that the petitioner is accused of grave offences. He has criminal history. Upon release from custody, the petitioner can intimidate the prosecution witnesses and can influence the investigation. Apprehension was also expressed that the petitioner might not remain present even during the trial.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General and have also gone through the status report as well as the record produced by the Investigating Agency.

5. Mainly the role attributed to the petitioner is in relation to his renting out his owned premises to co-accused Gaurav Minhas, allegedly for the purpose and with the knowledge that the said premises will be used for the manufacture of spurious liquor. It is not in dispute that the rent deed was executed between the petitioner and co- accused Gaurav Minhas on 03.12.2021, in terms of which, the petitioner had rented out his owned premises in question to co-accused Gaurav Minhas on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- for the purpose of using them as store. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found present in the premises at the time of the raid conducted on 22.01.2022 and a lot of incriminating articles involved in manufacture of spurious liquor were recovered from the premises, however, merely on that basis, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner had rented out his premises to co-accused Gaurav Minhas with the specific knowledge that the premises will be used by Gaurav Minhas for manufacture of spurious liquor or that the petitioner had

connived with the co-accused Gaurav Minhas in manufacture of spurious liquor. It cannot be ruled out at this stage that the transaction of money in the petitioner’s bank account from co-accused Gaurav Minhas was on account of the monthly rent of the premises. There are all the facts which are to be proved during trial by leading cogent evidence. Insofar as the criminal history of the petitioner is concerned, though as per the status report, a number of FIRs were registered against the petitioner, but all of them either ended in acquittal of the petitioner or resulted in compromise of the matter. In the instant case, the investigation in the matter is stated to be complete. Challan in the instant case has been presented before the learned trial Court on 18.04.2022. The bail petitioner has spent considerable period in custody ever since his arrest on 22.01.2022. No recovery remains to be effected from him. The co-accused Pushpender Singh and Sunny Chaudhary, who were found present alongwith the bail petitioner on the spot, have since been enlarged on bail vide respective orders dated 16.09.2022 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1724 of 2022 and 29.06.2022 in Cr.MP(M) No.1245 of 2022.

Hence, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, petitioner has made out a case for his enlargement on regular bail. The apprehension of the investigating agency about bail petitioner’s influencing the witnesses can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) . The petitioner shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii) . The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) . The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv) . The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer, complainant 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 attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi) . 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 his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, 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 matter without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 30, 2022

Judge Mukesh