Mohammad Hamid vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 103 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMPM No.1905 of 2020:

                             Reserved on            : December 28, 2020
                             Date of Decision : January 4, 2021




                                                                       .

        Mohammad Hamid                                     ....Petitioner

                                     Versus





        State of Himachal Pradesh                          ....Respondent.

        Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner : Ms Sheetal Vyas, Advocate.

        For the respondent           :    Mr. Desh Raj Thakur,            Additional
                     r                    Advocate General.

        Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

This petition has been preferred, under Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.),

seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 47 of 2020, dated

11.2.2020, registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 465, 468,

471 and 201 of IPC, in Police Station Baddi, District Solan,

H.P.

2. Status report stands filed.

3. According to the status report, on 11.2.2020,

one Gurpeet Singh resident of Village Kola, Tehsil

Ranbirsinghpura, District Jammu had submitted a written

application, stating therein that they had been cheated by

CRMPM No.1905/2020 ...2...

Pooja Chaudhary and Rahat Ali Jafari (petitioner) on the

pretext of providing job and he had also given details of 6

persons, who had paid lacks of rupees to accused persons.

.

Finding prima facie commission of cognizable and non

bailable offence, Pooja Chaudhary and Rahat Ali (petitioner)

were arrested on the same day and during investigation

room in the hotel, occupied by Polja Chaudhary, was

searched and from the suitcase of Pooja Chaudhary,

appointment letters issued to Gurpreet Singh, Mohan Lal

Dube and Raghav Hira, purported to have been issued by

All India Radio Akahvani Bhawan Parliament Street, New

Delhi 110001, were recovered. These letters were having

stamps of Parsar Bharti Akashvani Bhawan, New Delhi and

Director General Akashvani Bhawan New Delhi.

Photocopies of certificates of some persons, including

complainant, were also found in the suitcase of Pooja

Chaudhary. Petitioner Rahat Ali was found to be Chairman

of Tucsi Foundation and Tucsi Business Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,

registered with Registrar of Companies, Jammu.

4. As per status report, on the basis of disclosure

statement of Pooja Chaudhary, during her custody,

`1,77,000/- were recovered from the drawer of her bed,

situated at Avtar Camp Ramgarh (Samba) Jammu and she

further disclosed that remaining amount, through a person

CRMPM No.1905/2020 ...3...

Jitender Singh alias Lucky, had been transferred by her to

the account of Mohd. Hameed and the appointment letters

were issued by that Mohd. Hameed only. On 7.3.2020

.

Mohd. Hameed was apprehended and arrested from Punchh

(J&K).

5. According to Police Pooja Chaudhary had

disclosed transfer of about `15.5 lacs to the account of

Hameed. Jitinder Singh had endorsed the version of Pooja

Chaudhary and had disclosed his Current and Saving

Account numbers, through which amounts of `8.5 laccs and

`7 lacs, respectively were transferred to the account of

Hameed and his version was also corroborated on perusal

of account statements received from J&K Bank Jammu.

6. As per status report, petitioner Mohammad

Hanif was arrested on 7.3.2020 from Punchh and during his

custody, through his brother Javed Iqbal, he had produced

`1,15,000/-, which were concealed by him in his house and

he had further disclosed that appointment letters, given by

him to Pooja Chaudhary, were signed by him and stamps

thereon, were also put by him and stamps were burnt by

him.

7. According to status report, co-accused Pooja

Chaudhary and petitioner Mohammad Hameed had

received `42,50,000/- in total, from different persons, on

CRMPM No.1905/2020 ...4...

the pretext of providing job, out of which `16,00,000/- were

returned by Pooja Chaudhary to complainant party.

8. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate

.

General that petitioner Rahat Ali was conducting counseling

programme/meetings of the persons who were allured by

Mohd Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary to provide job in

Government Departments in Himachal Pradesh and he has

been found involved in the conspiracy of commission of

offence with Mohd. Hameed and Pooja Chaudhary under

Section 120B IPC. Challan has been presented in the Court

of ACJM on 6.4.2020.

9. During investigation specimen handwriting and

signatures of co-accused Pooja Chaudhary and petitioner

Mohammad Hamid and Laptop, e-mails and specimen

signatures alongwith questioned documents have been for

analysis to State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Junga,

result whereof is awaited. It is stated in the status report

that call details of accused persons, bank details of

petitioner Mohammad Hanif and co-accused Pooja

Chaudhary are yet to be obtained, which could not be

obtained because of restriction on inter-State

transportation, on account of COVID-10 Pandemic.

10. It is also reported that co-accused Pooja

Chaudhary has been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide

CRMPM No.1905/2020 ...5...

judgment dated 15.6.2020 passed in CRMPM No.571 of

2020, whereas co-accused Rahat Ali was enlarged on bail

vide judgment dated 7.10.2020 passed in CRMPM No.998 of

.

2020.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish local surety and

also undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by the

Court in case he is enlarged on bail.

12. Without going into merits of the case, as

accusation against the petitioner is yet to be proved and

the fact that he is custody since March, 2020, at this stage,

he may also be released on bail.

13. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to be released

on bail in the present case, on his furnishing personal bond

in the sum of `50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount,

one of which, as undertaken by the petitioner, shall be a

local surety, to the satisfaction of trial Court, within three

weeks from today, subject to following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

CRMPM No.1905/2020 ...6...

He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

.

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that he shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) he shall not leave India without permission of

the Court.

14. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for

imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other

condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the

facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of

justice. It shall be open for the trial Court to impose any

other condition, as deemed necessary, upon the petitioner,

independent of prayer of prosecution.

15. In case the petitioner violates any conditions

imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the

competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in

accordance with law.

CRMPM No.1905/2020 ...7...

16. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with

the directions issued by the High Court, vide

communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139

.

dated 18.03.2013.

17. It is made clear that enlargement of petitioner

on bail shall not entitle the co-accused to release them on

bail on sole ground of parity, but their cases are to be

considered and decided, if any application is preferred by

them, on its own merit and status report of the prosecution

filed therein.

18. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore

shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and

are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

19. The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of

order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial

Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order,

however, he may verify the order from the High Court

website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

                                               ( Vivek Singh Thakur )
    January 4, 2021(sd)                               Judge.