The Himachal Pradesh High Court has allowed a pre-arrest bail of an accused in a misappropriation of funds after noting that the bank transactions could be easily ascertained through documentary evidence. The Bench noted that there was no sufficient reason to grant custodial interrogation of the Petitioner.
It was remarked that the allegation that Petitioner was not revealing the names of those to whom money has been disbursed may not be that relevant for proving the allegations against the Petitioner.
It was opined that an investigation in a criminal case cannot be used as a recovery proceeding. Further, it was held that the tool of custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract a confession.
Brief Facts:
A complaint was received from the owner of a retail outlet for petroleum products, who claimed that his four employees, including the Petitioner, had misappropriated money to the tune of Rs 28.57 lakh and that all the Accused had fled.
The documents kept at the outlet were taken by the Police for use in the investigation. During the probe, it was revealed that the Petitioner was keeping five separate bank accounts in his name.
The instant petition has been preferred for the grant of pre-arrest Bail to the Petitioner in the case registered under Sections 408 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was contended that the Petitioner did not disclose the names and identities of persons to whose account the money had been transferred from his account. Therefore, bail should not be given.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that the transactions in the Petitioner's bank account were made at the instance and consent of the Complainant and the Accounts Manager of the establishment. It was also submitted that during the investigation, the Petitioner had fully cooperated and provided the entire detail of accounts to the police.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the Petitioner had co-operated in the Investigation as and when required. Moreover, merely the fact that a huge transaction has been found in the bank account does not lead to the conclusion of guilt.
The Bench noted that there was no sufficient reason to grant custodial interrogation of the Petitioner.
Further, it was remarked that the allegation that Petitioner was not revealing the names of those to whom money has been disbursed may not be that relevant for proving the allegations against the Petitioner. It was opined that an investigation in a criminal case cannot be used as a recovery proceeding.
The High Court expounded that the tool of custodial interrogation cannot be used to extract a confession. Concerning the bank transfers, documentary evidence would suffice for the same.
The decision of the Court:
Considering such factual & legal aspects, the Bench ordered the Petitioner to be released on bail, in case of his arrest.
Case Title: Rohit Chauhan Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case No: Cr. M.P.(M) No. 2527 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mr. CN Singh
Advocates for the Respondent: Advs. Mr. Manoj Chauhan and Mr. Varun Chandel
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
