Sandeep Shah vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 460 HP

                                                      1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA
                                         Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2157 of 2020




                                                                                .

                                         Reserved on: 23.12.2020
                                         Date of Decision: January 8, 2021





    Sandeep Shah                                                                    ...Petitioner.

                                                  Versus





    State of H.P.                                                                   ..Respondent.


    Coram:

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

    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the Petitioner:                  M/s Raunak Satpathy and Ajay Kashyap,
                                         Advocates, through Video Conferencing.


    For the Respondent:                  Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate
                                         General, through Video Conferencing.




    Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner, through his wife has approached this Court

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short

'Cr.P.C.'), seeking bail in case FIR No.198 of 2020 dated 19.09.2020,

registered in Police Station Boileauganj (Shimla West) under

Sections 376, 506 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as 'IPC' in short).

2. As per status report, complainant had approached

Police Chowki Fagu, Shimla, where her statement under Section 154

Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she has stated that she had been

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

serving as a Human Resource Manager in Limunesh Power

Technology Private Limited Company at Baddi from 2010 to 2019

and w.e.f. 25.11.2019 to 03.06.2020, she had been serving in the

.

same Company at Gurgaon. In August 2018 during her training

sponsored by the Company at Indore (M.P.), she came in contact of

petitioner-accused, who was serving as Area Manager in the same

Company and he took her mobile number and started telephonic

and whatsapp talks/chats with her and in April 2019 he proposed to

marry complainant and the said proposal was communicated by her

to her parents upon which her parents had decided to meet family

of petitioner-accused, but petitioner-accused had stated that his

father was not alive and mother had little knowledge of Hindi. As

per complaint, from 14.06.2019 to 16.06.2019 petitioner and

complainant had stayed in a Hotel Oyo Restful, Shoghi and there,

for the first time, physical relations had developed and such

relations continued till January 2020 as she was under impression

that both of them were going to marry. According to complainant,

as and when she had been visiting for training at Gurgaon,

petitioner, who was posted at Gurgaon at that time, had been

booking Hotel for her, but at the time of issuance of bill, on advise

of the petitioner, she had been taking bill in the name of one person

only whereas petitioner had been keeping bills having details of two

persons with him and later on petitioner had made a complaint in

the Company for claiming amount on the basis of wrong bills and

petitioner had started to threaten her. Thereafter also, petitioner

continued to exploit her physically as on refusal he had been

threatening to kill her and to abduct through goons and to defame

her by making her photographs alongwith petitioner viral in public

on social media. As per complaint, complainant came to know

about marital status of the petitioner from his neighbour in

.

December 2019. Later on, in the month of March 2020, when

complainant was at Chandigarh, she came to know that petitioner

alongwith his wife Mousumi Chakraborty had visited Fagu and

declared that complainant was having affair with petitioner and had

alleged that she had taken a sum of `2,00,000/- from the petitioner

and thereafter petitioner had started to defame her and post

photographs of both (complainant and petitioner) on social media

like Facebook, Instagram and Linkedin and when she was at

Chandigarh, petitioner, through someone had publicized prints of

her photographs and documents in Fagu Bazaar.

3. On the basis of area of commission of offence,

statement of the complainant was transferred to Police Station

Boileauganj and on the basis of which FIR has been registered in

Police Station Boileauganj. During investigation, in search of

petitioner, police had visited Delhi, Gurgaon and Faridabad. His

mother was served with notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., directing

the petitioner-accused to join investigation on 27.09.2020, but he

did not turn up. Thereafter, w.e.f. 08.10.2020 to 14.10.2020, police

team again went Delhi, Gurgaon etc. in search of the petitioner and

petitioner was apprehended on 14.10.2020 and was arrested on

15.10.2020 from Gurgaon. During investigation, petitioner had

disclosed that he and his mother are permanent resident of 2/21A,

Pudranagar, Kolkata-68 and about nine years back he alongwith his

mother has shifted to Gurgaon (Haryana) and he was married to

Mousumi Chakraborty in the year 2016 and in the year 2018 he

alongwith his mother had purchased a Flat No. G-1402, Florida

Apartment, Sector 82, Nahar Par, Faridabad (Haryana) for

.

consideration of `22,00,000/- and he is paying installment of

`40,000/- per month for that.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that marital

status of petitioner was well known to the complainant since

beginning and she had been constantly interfering and creating

nuisance in his family life and petitioner had already initiated legal

action against the complainant before registration of present FIR

and present FIR is a counter blast to that and petitioner since first

meeting with the complainant had made it clear to the complainant

that he was married and not interested in furthering the

acquaintance beyond friendship, but complainant kept on alluring,

mentally pressurizing and using his low moments to entangle him in

her web of deceit to convince him to develop physical relationship

and the booking of Hotels was done consensually by the parties and

complainant, in order to destroy the domestic life of the petitioner

had gone to the extent of calling and revealing details of her

physical relations to the petitioner's wife and mother. Further that

complainant was well aware about the marital status of the

petitioner. In order to support contention, print out of whatsapp

chat and recording of audio clipping of telephonic conversation

between petitioner and complainant have also been placed on

record. It is further stated that petitioner had never intended to

marry complainant, however, complainant was forcing the

petitioner to marry her after getting divorced from wife. It is also

submitted that petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant and

in counter blast thereto, present complaint has been filed to

.

pressurize and harass the petitioner.

5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that

from the documents placed on record, itself by the petitioner, it is

evident that petitioner had been accompanying the complainant not

only to Gurugram and Delhi but also to Agra and Rishikesh and

allegation of staying at Shogi is also substantiated from the Invoices

placed on record by the petitioner himself which indicates that

relation was more than friendship and further that plea of the

complainant that she came to know about the marital status of the

petitioner is substantiated from document Annexure P-5, placed on

record on behalf of the petitioner, which reflects the mental state of

complainant, after knowing the truth. He has further submitted that

from the record of chatting, filed with the petition, it can be easily

construed that petitioner had been assuring the complainant that

even after December, 2019, petitioner was assuring the

complainant that he will be able to get divorce without any difficulty

which definitely indicates that relationship was developed by the

petitioner with complainant with assurance to marry.

6. It has also been submitted by the learned Deputy

Advocate General that even in response to the notice issued under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complainant had

categorically stated that the cheque in question proposed to be

given to petitioner for relationship but after knowing his marital

status it was not to be handed over to the petitioner, as

complainant was disappointed after knowing the marital status of

the petitioner in December, 2019 and, therefore, payment was

stopped. He further submits that in fact, action under Section 138

.

of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a counterblast to the complaint

made by the complainant to the police at Gurugram.

7. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also pointed out

that from Annexure P-7, the Rent Agreement, it is evident that an

accommodation was taken on rent by the petitioner alongwith

complainant, with effect from 1.1.2020 to 30.11.2020, for 11

months and the said agreement was signed jointly by petitioner

alongwith complainant which also substantiates plea of the

complainant that petitioner had been assuring to marry her and to

substantiate such assurance by creating an impression in the mind

of complainant, petitioner appears to have entered into Rent

Agreement jointly alongwith complainant.

8. Lastly, learned Deputy Advocate General has also

submitted that petitioner-accused has been apprehended with great

difficulty as his permanent address is not known and, therefore, in

absence of local surety, it would be difficult to ascertain his

presence during trial. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that petitioner is a permanent resident of Flat No. G-

1402, Florida Apartment, Sector 82, Nahar Par, Faridabad

(Haryana), which has been purchased by him alongwith his wife

Mousumi Chakraborty and further that he has responsibility to

support his family, therefore, he cannot abscond from the trial and

further that petitioner is also ready to furnish local surety and to

abide by any other condition imposed by the Court in case he is

enlarged on bail.

    9.             Challan   has    been       presented         in    the    Court      on




                                                                        .
    07.12.2020.

10. Without commenting upon merit of the case, rival

contentions of the parties and keeping in view entire facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that at this stage,

petitioner is entitled for bail.

11. Accordingly, petition is allowed and petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.198 of 2020 dated

19.09.2020, registered in Police Station Boileauganj (Shimla West),

under Sections 376, 506 and 417 IPC, on his furnishing personal

bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with two sureties, one of which shall

be local surety as undertaken by and on behalf of the petitioner,

each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court within

three weeks from today, upon such further conditions as may be

deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions

enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure the presence of

petitioner/accused at the time of trial and also 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 them from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall

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

(iii) that the petitioner 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; and

(vii) that he shall not leave the territory of India without

prior information. He shall inform the Police/Court his contact number and shall keep on informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in

future.

12. 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 and thereupon, it will also be

open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on

the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

13. In case the petitioner violates any condition 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

.

16. Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the trial

Court through E-mail.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),

Judge.

    January 8, 2021
           (Purohit)




                      r          to