Himachal Pradesh High Court

Suresh Chander vs State Of H.P on 26 July, 2024

( 2024:HHC:5925 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No.547 of 2024 a/w Cr.MP (M) Nos.570 and 863 of

RESERVED ON : 19.07.2024

ANNOUNCED ON : 26.07.2024 ___________________________________________________________

1. Cr.MP(M) No.547 of 2024

Suresh Chander .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent

For the petitioner: Mr. V.D. Khidtta and Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocates.

For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

ASI Satish Kumar, I.O., Police

Station [East]. Shimla, District Shimla [H.P.], present with records.

Prakash Veer Chauhan .......Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent

For the petitioner: Mr. Narendra Guleria and Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocates.

For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

ASI Satish Kumar, I.O., Police Station [East]. Shimla, District Shimla [H.P.], present with records.

                                                  -2-                             ( 2024:HHC:5925 )


                                               AND


           Sohan Lal                                                     .......Petitioner
                                Versus




                                                                          .
           State of Himachal Pradesh                                     ......Respondent





    Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? No

For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.

ASI Satish Kumar, I.O., Police r Station [East]. Shimla, District

Shimla [H.P.], present with records.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Three bail petitioners, namely, [i] Suresh

Chander; [ii] Prakash Veer Chauhan; and [3] Sohan Lal,

have come up before this Court, seeking regular bail

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

[hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'], originated from

FIR No.11 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024, under Sections

467, 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 201 of

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

-3- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as 'IPC']

registered at Police Station [East], Shimla, District

Shimla [H.P.].

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel/

Counsels is that the bail petitioners are innocent and

they have been falsely implicated. It is further averred

that bail petitioners have no connection with the

aforesaid offences. It is further averred that nothing has

been recovered and is due for recovery from the bail

petitioners. Bail petitioners have specifically stated that

there is no likelihood of their absconding or fleeing away

from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and they

undertake that they shall not tamper with the evidence

or the witnesses and shall not cause any inducement,

promise or threat to any person or persons connected

with the case. It is further averred that investigation in

the matter is complete and now final report/Challan

has been presented by the police before jurisdictional

Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on

-4- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

18.05.2024. It is further averred by bail petitioners

[Suresh Chander and Sohan Lal] had filed bail

applications before Learned Trial Court, which

were rejected on 27.02.2024 and 01.03.2024. The bail

petitioners, namely, Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer

Chauhan and Sohan Lal had also filed the bail

applications, before Learned Additional Sessions

Judge-1, Shimla, which were rejected on 16.03.2024

by a common order.

2(i). In the instant bail applications, it is averred

that they are innocent and their personal liberty

cannot be infringed or deprived, merely on the basis of

the accusation, which is also not prima-facie borne out

from the records. It is averred that before arresting

bail petitioners, even the compliance under Section

41 Cr.P.C., in terms of the mandate of law, in the case,

of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

Investigation, has not been complied with by the State

Authorities.

In this background, the bail petitioners have

-5- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

come up before this Court, praying for enlargement

of bail.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

.

3. Upon issuance of notice on the Respondent-

State Authorities by this Court, Respondent-State

Authorities have furnished the Status Report dated

29.05.2024 and thereafter the Fresh Status Report dated

16.07.2024. A perusal of Status Report(s) reveals that

the averments contained in both the Status Reports are

pari materia.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:

4. A perusal of Status Report(s) reveals that the

entire case originated from a complaint dated

19.02.2024, submitted to the Police Authorities by

Smt. Manjeet Bansal, Deputy Secretary [SA] to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh, with the averments

that on 16.02.2024 at about 11:30 a.m., one Shyam

Lal Chauhan, Section Officer, GAD-C Section, H.P.

Secretariat, visited the Chambers of the complainant

alongwith one Prikshit Kumar, VPO Purag and Paras,

-6- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

son of Shri Chander Mohan, VPO Purag, District Shimla

[H.P.], who have come to the concerned Section Officer

alongwith appointment/joining on 05.01.2024 and

.

14.02.2024, appointing them as Peons on outsource

by forging her signature. The complainant narrates that

one Akshay also visited the SAS-1 Section of the

Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, on 19.02.2024 along with

a copy of the appointment letter dated 12.02.2024,

appointing him as Clerk, on contract/outsource basis.

Likewise, one Ajay, son of Shri Kashmir Singh also

came to the Government Secretariat, alongwith similar

letter, for enabling him to join as Clerk on contract basis.

The complaint reveals that in fact no such appointment

letter was issued by the State/Secretariat Authorities

and the aforesaid letter(s) contained forged and

fabricated averments and forged signatures of the

complainant.

4(i). Based on the complaint dated 19.02.2024, FIR

was registered by Police Station [East], Shimla, on

19.02.2024.

                                  -7-                          ( 2024:HHC:5925 )


    4(ii).     Status   Report(s)     further      reveals        that      the

investigation in the matter started on 20.02.2024,

whereby, the statement of two candidates [Paras and

Prikshit], who were issued the forged appointment letters

were recorded, who during investigation named one

person, Prikshit Azad, who was summoned by the police.

On making enquiries, it transpired that Prikshit Azad

[main accused] along with one of his agent-Damandeep

Singh, resident of Jogindernagar in District Mandi have

collectively duped the unemployed youth, by promising

jobs to them by fabricating documents and by forging

signatures of complainant-competent authority. Based

on this, the police arrested Prikshit Azad on 20.02.2024.

4(iii). Status Report(s) further reveals that the main

accused Prikshit Azad disclosed to the police that he

resorted to these illegal activities in conspiracy

with one Damandeep Singh, resident of Jogindernagar

and accordingly, Damandeep Singh, was arrested on

21.02.2024.


    4(iv).     Status Report(s) further reveals that Prikshit





                                  -8-                          ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Azad and Damandeep Singh have duped about thirty-nine

[39] persons in a planned and coordinated manner with

each other.

4(v). During the course of investigation on

21.02.2024, three persons namely, Himanshu Kumar,

Harish Kumar and Pankaj Kumar, appeared before the

Police Station [East], Shimla, who disclosed that they

have also been duped at the behest of one Mohinder

Bhardwaj, who was alleged to have acted through his

agents i.e. Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and

Sohan Lal i.e. the bail petitioners in the instant petitions.

Police not being satisfied with the explanation so

submitted arrested Mohinder Bhardwaj on 21.02.2024.

4(vi). On making further enquiries, it transpired

that Mohinder Bhardwaj, has duped twelve [12]

persons, by extorting an amount of Rs.12,04,236/-

[Rupees Twelve Lakh Four Thousand Two Hundred

Thirty Six] allegedly through his agents i.e. Suresh

Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal, bail

petitioners herein. Status Report(s) further reveals that

-9- ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Investigation is complete and the Final Report/Challan

final report has been presented before the jurisdictional

Court on 18.05.2024.

In the background of the Status Report(s),

the Learned State Counsel has prayed for the dismissal

of bail applications.

CLAIM OF BAIL PETITIONERS IN REBUTTAL:

5. In case of Cr.MP(M) No. 547 of 2024 [Suresh

Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh], Mr. V.D.

Khidtta, Learned Counsel submits that the stand in the

Status Report is denied, by stating that the bank

transaction details cannot be the basis for inferring

accusation, when the bail petitioner is an agriculturist

and he had received the amounts from various suppliers

to whom the vegetables were supplied/sold by him.

The bills, which have been placed on record have not

been denied/disputed by the State Authorities.

5(i). So far as Cr.MP(M) No. 570 of 2024 [Parkash

Veer Chauhan, Mr. Narender Guleria, Learned Counsel

submits that the bail petitioner has refuted the

- 10 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

accusation by asserting that the bail petitioner himself

is a victim, whereby, the main-accused has duped him

for an amount of about Rs 6,00,000/- since April 2020

onwards, by promising a job for his son, Narinder

Chauhan, from whose account also, the bail petitioner

has remitted the amount to Mohinder Bhardwaj for

which he submitted a complaint to Superintendent of

Police Shimla on 27.04.2024. It is submitted that the

bail petitioner was himself duped by Mohinder Bhardwaj

and yet the accusation against the petitioner is not

borne out.

5(ii). In so far as Cr.M.P(M) No.863 of 2024 [Sohan

Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh] is concerned,

Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel submits that

except for a stray entry of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five

Thousand] remitted by Pankaj Sharma, though GP

account is concerned, there is no other material to carve

out a prima facie accusation and when, the factum that a

person promises or induces another to pay Rs.5,000/-

[Rupees Five Thousand] only, in lieu of job, in Himachal

- 11 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Pradesh Secretariat appears to be highly improbable at

this stage. Moreover, the same is a matter of trial.

6. Heard, Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Mr. Narendra

Guleria, Advocates and Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned

Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra,

Learned Counsel, for the respective bail petitioners and

Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent-State.

7. Before dealing with the bail petitions, it is

necessary to take note of the provisions of Sections

467, 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120-B and 201

IPC, which read as under:-

"Section 467 Indian Penal Code:

Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.--

Whoever forges a document which purports to

be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable

security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term

- 12 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 419 Indian Penal Code: Punishment for cheating by personation.-- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished

.

with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 420 Indian Penal Code:

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces

the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being

converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 465 Indian Penal Code:

Punishment for forgery.--

Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or

with both.

Section 468 Indian Penal Code: Forgery for purpose of cheating.-- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the

[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 469 Indian Penal Code: Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.--

- 13 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Whoever commits forgery, [intending that the document or electronic record forged] shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and

.

shall also be liable to fine.

Section 471 Indian Penal Code: Using as genuine a forged [document or

electronic record].--

Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be

punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]. Section 120-B Indian Penal Code: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy

to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is

made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an

offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six

months, or with fine or with both.]

Section 201 Indian Penal Code:

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that

- 14 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;

if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence

.

which he knows or believes to have been

committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to

seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with imprisonment for life.-- and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment

which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; r if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is

punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which

may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."

8. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused

for pre-arrest or post-arrest bail-regular bail is to

be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed

in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad

para-meters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court while dealing with the claim for bail in

- 15 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980)

2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan

Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar

versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta

Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14

SCC 496; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus

Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24,

mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to

be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless

and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist which

lead to believe or point out towards the accusation

and even these parameters for bail have been reiterated

in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020)

5 SCC 01.

9. While dealing with the case for grant of

bail, three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

after reiterating the broad parameters, has mandated

in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh,

(2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para-25 that the "nature of

crime" has a huge relevancy, while considering the claim

- 16 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

for bail.

9(i). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State

of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of

the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken

into account, for considering the claim for regular bail

or anticipatory bail as under:

"11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons r touching the merits or de-merits of the

prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law,

in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking

into consideration the well-known parameters including:

(i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence;

(ii) The severity of punishment;

(iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not;

(iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/ witnesses;

                                   - 17 -                         ( 2024:HHC:5925 )


                         (v)      Likelihood of accused absconding from
                                  proceedings;
                         (vi)     Possibility of accused tampering with
                                  evidence;
                         (vii)    Obstructing or attempting to obstruct




                                                            .
                                  the due course of justice;

(viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail;

(ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge;

(x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive

and corroborative evidence.

12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and r circumstances of a case, would be required

to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket

formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the Cr. PC, as the case may be."

10. In normal parlance, the general principle of

law is that while considering the prayer for bail

{pre-arrest bail or regular bail], a prima facie opinion

is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds

exist pointing towards the accusation or whether the

accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object

- 18 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

of either injuring or humiliating or whether a person

has falsely roped in the crime needs to be tested

in background of self-imposed restrains or the broad

parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein

above.

11. This Court is also conscious of the fact

that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal

No.3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia

versus Directorate r of Enforcement, decided on

14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, a

Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by

the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the

Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation,

nature of evidence collected in support thereof,

severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences,

character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar

to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing

presence of accused during the trial, reasonable

apprehension of evidence being tampered with or any

possibility of causing an inducement, threat or promise

- 19 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

to either the witnesses or complainant or victim by

carving out a balance between the liberty of an accused

vis-à-vis the societal interests of the public-State at

large.

In this background, while testing the claim

for bail, the Court, is required to form a prima facie

opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred

to above, without delving into the evidence on merits,

as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused

as well as the prosecution.

ANALYSIS OF CLAIM IN INSTANT CASES:

12. After taking into account the entirety of

facts and circumstances, statutory provisions, mandate

of law as referred to above; and the material on

record, including Status Report(s), this Court is of

the considered view, that the bail petitioners are

entitled to be enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:

13. Status Reports(s), do not point out any prima-

facie accusation against the bail petitioners, at this

stage.

                                       - 20 -                          ( 2024:HHC:5925 )


    13(i).     Material on record does not indicate any

reasonable grounds to believe accusation against the

bail petitioners.

13(ii). On perusal of Status Report(s) dated

29.05.2024 and 16.07.2024, which are, by and large,

pari-materia, reveals that one of the two main accused,

namely, Prikshit Azad resorted to the illegal activities

of duping the unemployed youths in Shimla and

Mandi Districts of Himachal Pradesh. The aforesaid

Prikshi Azad, in a coordinated design, with

Damandeep Singh, have duped about thirty-nine [39]

people and both of them, have extorted an amount of

Rs.86,90,436/- [Rupees Eighty Six Lakh Ninety

Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six] from aforesaid

thirty-nine person(s). In these circumstances, though the

accusation against Prikshit Azad and Damandeep Singh,

is prima facie made out against both of them. However,

notably, the Status Report and the material on record do

not connect the bail petitioners with these two persons

[Prikshit Azad and Damandeep Singh] at this stage.

                                   - 21 -                         ( 2024:HHC:5925 )


    13(iii).    So far as the accusation against the bail

petitioners, namely, Suresh Chander, Prakash Veer

Chauhan and Sohan Lal, is concerned, the Status

Report(s) indicate that the bail petitioners were acting as

agents of one Mohinder Bhardwaj, a resident of District

Solan, who was alleged to have duped twelve [12] has

been denied, by stating that bail petitioners, were not the

agents of Mohinder Bhardwaj. Further, the averment in

Status Report(s) that the present bail petitioners were

the agents of Mohinder Bhardwaj, is a fact to be proved,

by way of evidence during the trial. Moreover, there is

nothing on record to connect the bail petitioners, [Suresh

Chander, Prakash Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal] with

the main accused-Mohinder Bhardwaj, at this stage.

13(iv). Moreover, the Status Report(s) does not

indicate any fabrication or forgery at the behest of

the bail petitioners. Even, the State Authorities have not

indicated anything incriminating against the bail

petitioners. Moreover, no recovery has either been made

or is intended to be made from the bail petitioners.

- 22 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Mere accusation cannot be made the basis of for

detaining the bail petitioners endlessly, when, the

accusation is not borne out which is nevertheless to be

proved during the trial, in accordance with law. Unless

and until the accusation is proved, the bail petitioners

are to be treated as innocent in the eyes of law.

13(v). Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Guddan

alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, r has outlined that the

object of bail is neither punitive and preventative, in

the context of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in

following terms:-

"11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40,

while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither

punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been

laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than

- 23 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

23. Apart from the question of prevention

.

being the object of refusal of bail, one

must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to

refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the r jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and

caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the

High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement

that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is

recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.

27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.

National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail

- 24 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under:

"We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan

.

Magistrate imposing the onerous condition

that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to

pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly

for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques r to resort to the legal remedies provided by law.

Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could

have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would

normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has

not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial

concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police."

In the backdrop of the mandate of law in

Guddan alias Roop Narayan [supra] since neither

any prima facie accusation nor reasonable grounds

- 25 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

exist, then, the detention of the bail petitioners will

lead to deprivation of liberty of the bail petitioners.

13(vi). While dealing with the concept of bail and

personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of

Maharashtra and Another, Hon'ble Apex Court, held as

under:- r "18 Criminals are not born out but made. The

human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a

past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be,

the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of

affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

- 26 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed

thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.

22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside."

14. Status Report(s) also do not indicate that

the bail petitioners are required for further investigation,

when, Final Police Report/Challan stands filed-presented

by the State Police Authorities, before the jurisdictional

Court, i.e. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla

on 18.05.2024.

14(i). Status Report(s) does not contains any prima

facie accusation against the bail petitioners that they

have resorted to cheating and have dishonestly induced

persons in any manner. There is no material on record,

that the bail petitioners have resorted to any forgery for

valuable security of any document or the electronic

- 27 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

record in any manner, at this stage.

14(ii). Even the Status Report(s) do not indicate

any material connecting the bail petitioners, with the

prime accused i.e. either Prikshit Azad or Damandeep

Singh or Mohinder Bhardwaj, at this stage. Mere

monetary transaction(s), which on facts have been

refuted by the bail petitioners cannot be made the basis

for inferring the prima facie accusation, which is not

borne out at this stage.

Notably, once the Learned Senior Counsel/

Counsel(s) for the respective bail petitioners have

refuted the averments in the Status Reports by stating

that, in case of bail petitioner [Suresh Chander], the

amounts deposited by him in his bank account related to

payment(s) received from the vegetable agents/whole-

sellers to whom the goods-vegetables were sold, which is

borne out from material on record [receipts etc.], then,

the prima facie accusation is not borne out against

Suresh Chander.


                 In   case   of   bail   petitioner          [Prakash          Veer





                                       - 28 -                         ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Chauhan] it is borne out from the material on record,

that the main accused [Mohinder Bhardwaj], had

promised job for Narinder Chauhan, son of the bail

petitioner [Prakash Veer Chauhan] and both were duped

of about Rs.6,00,000/- [Rupees Six Lakh], which is clear

from the complaint made by bail petitioner to

Superintendent of Police, Shimla District on 27.07.2024

[Annexure P-2]. Therefore, the main accused-Mohinder

Bhardwaj in order to return money issued two cheques

to bail petitioner, but the same were dishonoured. In

these circumstances, once the bail petitioner [Prakash

Veer Chauhan] and his son were themselves a victim

of extortion by Mohinder Bhardwaj and no other

material exists, then, the prima facie accusation is

not made out against the bail petitioner [Prakash

Veer Chauhan], at this stage.

So far as bail petitioner-Sohan Lal is

concerned, a stray entry of meagre amount of Rs.5,000/-

[Rupees Five Thousand] in lieu of promising/providing a

job, in the Himachal Pradesh Government Secretariat,

- 29 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

appears to be highly improbable. Moreover, the same

is a fact, which is yet to be proved during the trial.

Further, the averment in the Status Reports that the

bail petitioners were agents is outrightly denied and

the same is yet to be proved during the trial. The

detention of the bail petitioners cannot be preventative

and punitive, when, in the facts of the instant cases,

no prima facie accusation is made out, at this stage.

CONCLUSION:

15. In view of the discussion, and the

reasons stated hereinabove, the instant bail

petitions are allowed i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.547 of 2024 filed

by Suresh Chander; Cr.MP(M) No.570 of 2024 filed by

Prakash Veer Chauhan and; Cr.MP(M) No.863 of 2024

filed by Sohan Lal and the Respondent-State Authorities

are directed to enlarge all bail petitioners, namely,

Suresh Chander; Prakash Veer Chauhan; and Sohan

Lal, on bail, subject to the observance of the following

conditions:-

(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release the bail petitioners, namely, Suresh Chander;

- 30 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

Prakash Veer Chauhan; and Sohan Lal, on furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.75,000/- [Rupees Seventy Five Thousand] with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court concerned;

.

(ii) Petitioners shall abide by all other conditions,

as may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, if any, in view of this order;

(iii) Petitioners shall neither involve themselves nor shall abet the commission of any offence

hereinafter. Any involvement or abetting shall entail the withdrawal of concession in terms of this order;

(iv) Petitioners shall disclose their functional

E-Mail IDs/WhatsApp numbers and that of their sureties to the Learned Trial Court;

(v) Petitioners shall not hinder the smooth flow of the investigation and shall join the investigation, as and when called, by the r Investigating Agency;

(vi) Petitioners shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court;

(vii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the

witnesses or the evidence in any manner;

(viii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to

any person acquainted with the facts of the case or the witnesses;

(ix) It is clarified that violation of any of the conditions imposed hereinabove, shall entail cancellation of bail automatically; and

(x) State Authorities are free to move this Court for alteration/modification of this Court, for violation as in (i) to (viii) supra, in the facts and circumstances so necessitates at any time herein-after.

16. Bail petitioners [Suresh Chander, Prakash

Veer Chauhan and Sohan Lal], who are in judicial

- 31 - ( 2024:HHC:5925 )

custody, in District Jail Kaithu, District Shimla [H.P.]

be released, as per norms, forthwith.

17. Any observations made herein-above, shall not

be construed in any manner as an expression of opinion

on merits of the aforesaid cases and these observations

are confined only for the purposes of disposal of the

instant bail applications.

18. In the aforesaid terms, all bail applications

are allowed r and the pending miscellaneous