CRMPM/1766/2018 on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1766 of 2018 Decided on : 28.12.2018

Raj Kumar Gupta

…..Petitioner Versus State of H.P.

….Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Dinender Panwar, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Hemant Vaid & Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy.A.G.

Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral) The instant petition has been instituted by the bail petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C, wherethrough, he seeks grant of anticipatory bail qua given his apprehending his arrest, for his allegedly committing offences punishable under Section 420, and, Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, in case FIR No. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

182 of 2018 of 16.12.2018, as, registered at Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

2. The Investigating Officer, is present in Court, and, has intimated this Court, that, solvent security, in, a sum of Rs. 80,000/­, allegedly received by the bail applicant, from, the complainant concerned, being insisted, to, be furnished by him, as, an apposite pre­condition. Also, he submits that the bail­applicant /accused, has, throughout rendered cooperation to him, in, his, holding investigation, vis­a­vis, the offence(s) borne in the FIR. However, believing the statement made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the bail­applicant, that, the latter had merely rented the relevant premises, to the principal accused, namely one Suresh Kumar, and, one Rekha Devi, and, also believing his further submission, that, the complainant has reared allegations, vis­a­vis, the aforesaid only receiving money(s), from them (i) thereupon, the endeavor of the Investigating Officer, to seek the custodial interrogation of the bail­applicant, is, entirely unfounded, and, appears to generate, may be, from some of the complainants, hence making

disclosures qua at the relevant stage, of, incriminatory transactions rather occurring inter­se the complainant, and, the afore principal accused hence thereat, the, bail applicant being also present, however, his afore presence thereat, is not, sufficient to conclude qua hence his being liable for fastening, of, any incriminatory liability upon him.

3. Consequently, when at this stage, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, demonstrating, that in the event of bail being granted to the bail applicant/petitioner, there being every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon, the indulgence of bail, is granted to the bail applicant/petitioner, and, the order rendered on 17.12.2018 in Cr.MP(M) No. 1766 of 2018, is, made absolute, on, the following conditions :­ i) That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. ii) That he 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 to the Police. iii) That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. iv) That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. v). That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the bail applicant shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody.

4. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. (Sureshwar Thakur) Judge 28th December, 2018 (kck)