Pradesh vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 3381 HP

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                         ON THE 13th DAY OF MAY, 2022
                                   BEFORE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
                CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) NO.1067 OF 2022




                                                                                                       .

               Between:-

                 TENZIN LHAKPA D/O SH. GONPO, TASHI JONG, R/O TARA
                 GARH, TEHSIL BAIJNATH, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL





                 PRADESH, AGED 46 YEARS.

                                                                                                ...PETITIONER

                 (BY MR. B.C. NEGI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS. REETA
                 HINGMANG, ADVOCATE)





                 AND

                 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                      r                                                         ...RESPONDENT

                 (BY MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
                 AND MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
                 GENERAL)
                 1
                     WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?



                This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
    Chander Bhusan Barowalia, passed the following :




                                                            ORDER

The present bail application has been maintained by the

petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

grant of transit anticipatory bail, in case FIR No.RC0032022A0026,

dated 10.5.2022, registered at P.S. CBI, ACB, New Delhi, under

Sections 7, 7A, 8 of PC Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468,

471 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, she

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The

petitioner is permanent of the place and neither in a position to

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes.

tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from

justice and prays that the petitioner only wants to produce herself

before the competent Court/authorities concerned.

.

3. As per the petitioner, she had applied for renewal of

registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, on

29.4.2021, as per the procedure laid by the FCR to FCRA (MHA) for

Dongyu Gatsal Ling, Nunnery. Later on 31.12.2021, one Mr. Ram

Chand, called her to the Office of the petitioner and stated that he is

calling from FCRA (MHA) and conveyed to the Office that annual return

of Donghgyu Gatsal Ling, Nunnery, has not been filed properly. After

receiving the call, the petitioner tried to contact FCRA (MHA), but was

unable to do so and thereafter started searching the Internet and

found that a consultancy firm, which could help the organization

professionally for renewal of registration under FCRA. The petitioner

came in contact with one Amita Chandra, who was the Director of M/s

Shaurya Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd; and in furtherance of the

discussion Amita Chandra told the petitioner that for the renewal of

FCRA, the consultancy fees would be rupees four lac only. After

negotiations Amita Chandra agreed to charge Rs.3,50,000/-, as

consultancy fee, but the only condition which Amita Chandra insisted

that she will take the entire amount of consultancy fees in cash, for

which the petitioner agreed. Lastly, the petitioner has prayed that the

petitioner be granted transit anticipatory bail for seven days only.

4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone

through the records, carefully.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that

the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has

further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper

.

with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He

has further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the

investigation. He has further argued that the petitioner being a lady

and law abiding citizen and considering the overall facets of the case,

the instant petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted transit

anticipatory bail. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the

judgment rendered r by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in

Anticipatory Bail Application No.441 of 2021 titled Nikita Jacob

vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 17th February, 2021, on

this aspect.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has

argued that as the offence has been committed outside the jurisdiction

of this Court, this Court can only grant transit bail and cannot grant

bail, as the same will prejudice to the rights of the prosecution.

7. Heard. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact

that the petitioner only wants transit bail, as the petitioner wants to

make proper arrangements to seek appropriate reliefs in other State.

Since the petitioner would be ultimately approaching the Court having

jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to make any observation on

the merits of the case. In the light of factual matrix of the case

protection, under Section 438 of Cr. P.C can be granted to the

petitioner for temporary period of seven days only. So, it will be

appropriate and in the interest of justice, the petitioner is released on

bail forthwith for seven days only, in case FIR No.RC0032022A0026,

dated 10.5.2022, registered at P.S. CBI, ACB, New Delhi, under

Sections 7, 7A, 8 of PC Act, 1988 and Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468,

471 of the Indian Penal Code, on her furnishing personal bond to the

.

tune of `25,000/- (rupees twenty fifty thousand only) with one surety

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating

Officer/Arresting Officer. 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 r the Court.

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 petition is disposed of.

9. However, it is made clear that this protection order is

granted for a period of seven days only from today and the same shall

automatically loose its force after seven days.

10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove

are only confined for adjudication of the present case and the same

shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, which shall be

adjudicated on its own.

Copy dasti.

( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ) Judge

13th May, 2022 (CS)