CRMPM/2407/2019 on 30 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 2407 of 2019 Date of Decision: 30.12.2019 __________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar alias Nikka …….. Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …..Respondent. __________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagmohan Chandel and Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Bail petitioner namely, Naresh Kumar alias Nikka, who is behind the bars since 8.11.2019, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.185/2019, dated 17.8.2019, under Section 407 of IPC, registered at police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Sequel to order dated 23.12.2019, ASI Suresh Kumar has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Sudhir 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, stated that though investigation in the case is complete, but since amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the bail petitioner, is yet to be recovered, petition having been filed by him, may be dismissed. Learned Additional Advocate General while making this Court to peruse the record, vehemently argued that it stands duly established on record that sum of Rs.9,65,000/­ was entrusted by the complainant to the bail petitioner for handing over the same to his partner Rajan at Parwanoo, but petitioner by concocting false story misappropriated the entire amount and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on 17.8.2019, complainant Anil Kumar lodged a complaint at police Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P. , stating therein that he is partner in Taksh Enterprises,

Parwanoo, which deals in whole sale business of ration. He alleged that bail petitioner being transporter had been delivering ration in various shops at Shimla in his truck bearing registration No.HP­51­A­1343 for the last three years. Complainant further alleged that on 9.8.2019, at 11:30 AM, he after having collected money from the various shops at Mashobra, District Shimla, H.P., entrusted sum of Rs. 9,65,000/­ to the bail petitioner for giving the same to another partner in Taksh enterprises i.e. Rajan at Parwanoo, but aforesaid amount was never entrusted to Rajan by the bail petitioner. Rather, he concocted story that near Tara Devi, he was robbed by some persons. Complainant further alleged that he has apprehension that aforesaid amount entrusted to the bail petitioner has been misappropriated by him and as such, appropriate action, in accordance with law, be taken against him.

5. During the investigation, bail petitioner admitted the fact with regard to entrustment of aforesaid amount by the complainant, but claimed that near Tara Devi, he was robbed by few persons and as such, he could not hand over the aforesaid amount to Rajan at Parwanoo. It is a matter of fact that no FIR, if any, ever came to be lodged at the behest of the bail petitioner qua the alleged incident of robbery. Investigation further reveals that after alleged incident bail petitioner sold his truck and deposited the proceeds thereof with the State Bank of India, from where he had allegedly taken loan. Since, no plausible explanation, if any, qua the amount allegedly entrusted to the bail petitioner by the complainant came to be rendered on record by the bail petitioner, he was arrested on 8.11.2019 and since then he is behind the bars. Though, in the case investigation is complete, as has been fairly stated by learned Additional Advocate General, but since amount allegedly misappropriated by bail petitioner has been not deposited and as such, present bail petition is being opposed on that ground only.

6. Though, statements made by the independent witnesses associated by the Investigating Agency suggest that sum of Rs.9,65,000/­ was entrusted to bail petitioner by the complainant, but such factum is yet to be proved, in accordance with law, by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence in the trial Court. Though, similarly this Court finds that bail petitioner had admitted the factum with regard to receipt of sum of Rs.9, 65,000/­ from the complainant, but since he has stated categorically before the Investigating Agency that such amount was robbed by miscreants, matter needs to be inquired from that angle also. Though, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner did not lodge FIR after the alleged incident of robbery, statement with regard to robbery made by bail petitioner does not appear to be plausible, but since such fact, if any, is yet to be determined by the Court below in the totality of evidence to be led on record by the Investigating Agency, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioners behind the bars for indefinite period during trial.

7. No doubt, in the case at hand amount allegedly misappropriated by the bail petitioner is yet to be recovered, but having taken note of the statement made by the bail petitioner before the police, veracity whereof is yet to be established/ ascertained, that aforesaid amount was robbed/ snatched by some of the miscreants, it would not be proper in the interest of justice to compel the bail petitioner to deposit such amount in the name of recovery. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by this Court in case titled Miss Nirmal Walia and another versus The State, 1982, S.L.J.(HP) 415, wherein it has been held as under:­ “1. Heard the learned Advocate General contends that looking to the nature of the case several discoveries are expected to be made through the petitioners and, therefore, if they are enlarged on bail question about the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act would crop up. It is, therefore, clarified that even if the petitioner are enlarged on anticipatory bail there shall not be any legal hitch in the application of the section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act because the petitioners continue to be under apprehension and “ in custody of the police officer” as contemplated by Section 27 even if they are enlarged on anticipatory bail.”

8. Guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved, in accordance with law, by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, especially when investigating in the case is complete and challan is likely to be filed shortly. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General with regard to petitioner’s fleeing from justice in the event of his being enlarged on bail, can be best met by putting him to stringent conditions, as has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel representing the bail petitioner.

9. It has been repeatedly held by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his /her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved, in accordance with law.

10. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The

relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first­time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re­Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:­

“ The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

12. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

14. Consequently, in view of the above, present bail petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/­ (Rs. five lac) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with following conditions:

a. He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly 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;

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

c. He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

d. He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

16. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy dasti. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge 30th December, 2019 (shankar)