IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MPs(M) No. 2311, 2313 to 2317 of 2019
Decided on: 28th December, 2019
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 2311 of 2019:
.
Sachin Kashyap ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 2313 of 2019:
Sachin Kashyap ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
3. Cr.MP(M) No. 2314 of 2019:
Sachin Kashyap ….Petitioner
r Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
4. Cr.MP(M) No. 2315 of 2019:
Sachin Kashyap ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
5. Cr.MP(M) No. 2316 of 2019:
Sachin Kashyap ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
6. Cr.MP(M) No. 2317 of 2019:
Sachin Kashyap ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
28/12/2019 20:28:05 :::HCHP
2
In all the petitions:
For the petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent/State: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhand, Addl. AG, with
.
Mr. Amit Dhumal, Dy. AG.
Inspector Madan Singh, Investigating
Officer SIT CID, Shimla, H.P.
_
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).
The present bail applications have been maintained by the
petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIRs No. 8, 9 and 12 to
15, under Sections 406 IPC, registered in Police Station CID Bharari,
Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present cases. He is
resident of the place 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 him behind the bars, so he be
released on bail.
3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on
08.07.2019 police received a complaint from complainant Shri Arun
Dhanta wherein it is alleged that in the year 2015 he sold apples in a
firm known as KFC, Dhalli, but till date he did not receive any
payment. The complainant further alleged that the payment of
Rs.4,38,939/- is recoverable. The complainant requested the police for
28/12/2019 20:28:05 :::HCHP
3
assistance to get his payment released from the aforesaid firm. Upon
the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case
and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation it was
unearthed that the aforesaid firm was registered in the name of the
.
petitioner. Investigation further revealed that on different dates the
petitioner purchased apples from the complainant and total amount of
Rs. 4,38,939/- was payable. Out of the total amount the petitioner
paid only Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner joined the investigation and
divulged that the firm is registered in his name, but his father used to
operate it and on 23.08.2019 he died in a road accident. The petitioner
further divulged that he does not know about the purchase of apples
from the complainant. The petitioner could not produce any records
qua the sale purchase of the apples. During further course of
investigation it was unearthed that many FIRs have been registered
against the said firm and after the death of the father of the petitioner
closure reports have been filed in some cases and some FIRs are
against the petitioner for similar offence. Lastly, it is prayed that the
bail applications of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner is
habitual in usurping the money of innocent people. There is possibility
that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may
flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution
evidence, so his applications be dismissed.
28/12/2019 20:28:05 :::HCHP
4
4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the
record, including the police reports, carefully.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued
.
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present cases. He
has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the
place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence
nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no
fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the
bars, as he is resident of the place, joining and co-operating in the
investigation. He has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at
all required by the police, as nothing is to be recovered at his instance,
so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional
Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is habitual in
repeating such kind of offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged
on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee
from justice. He has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioner
be dismissed.
6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and
neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper
with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all
required by the police, as he is resident of the place, joining and co-
28/12/2019 20:28:05 :::HCHP
5
operating in the investigation, so the applications be allowed and the
petitioner be enlarged on bail.
7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is
resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the
.
prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, his custody
is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in
the investigation, he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions of
bail, in case granted and also considering the overall facts, which have
come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this
Court finds that the present are the fit cases where the judicial
discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is
required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petitions are
allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest,
in case FIRs No. 8, 9 and 12 to 15, under Sections 406 IPC, registered
in Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., shall be
released on bail forthwith in the above cases, subject to his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand)
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer in each case. The bail is granted subject to the
following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner will appear before the
learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as
and when required.
(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India
without prior permission of the Court.
28/12/2019 20:28:05 :::HCHP
6
(iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the
Investigating Officer or Court.
.
8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
28th December, 2019 Judge
(virender)
r to
28/12/2019 20:28:05 :::HCHP
