SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sachin Kashyap vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 December, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation