Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4937 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 May, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No.120 of 2024 Decided on: 2nd May, 2024

.

__________________________________________________________

Abhishek Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner:

                    r                  to                   No

                                           Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate vice
                                           Mr. Sangram Singh Chandel,

                                           Advocate.

     For respondent:                       Mr. J.K. Sharma,                      Additional
                                           Advocate General.



     Ranjan Sharma, Judge(Oral)

The bail petitioner has come up before this

Court seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438

Cr.P.C., originating from FIR No.212/2021 dated

12.07.2021, registered in Police Station Nalagarh,

District Solan, [H.P.] under Section 420 of the Indian

Penal Code. On 11.01.2024, this Court had granted

interim bail on the basis of the averments made in the

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

bail application with direction to the bail petitioner to

furnish the personal bond with surety to the

satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and with the

.

further direction to join the investigation.

2. The matter was then listed on various dates

and on filing of the status report dated 01.02.2024,

this Court had passed an order on 04.03.2024

directing the State Authorities to file a fresh status

report, as to

whether the

associating in the investigation or not.

r petitioner has been

3. In terms of order dated 04.03.2024, the

State Authorities had filed a fresh status report, on the

instructions of SHO, Police Station Nalagarh and copy

of this status report and earlier status report were

furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The matter was then listed on 05.04.2024,

whereby the Investigating Officer had brought the

factum of the bail petitioner, not joining the

investigation despite being called for the same. These

facts are borne out in the status report dated

02.04.2024.

5. In view of the specific stand, so taken by the

Investigating Authorities that the bail petitioner was

not participating in the investigation, this Court had

passed an order on 18.04.2024, directing the bail

.

petitioner to appear before this Court and also to

appear before the Investigating Officer in the

interregnum. The matter was then listed on

29.04.2024, on which date fresh status report dated

28.04.2024 was filed by the State Authorities,

indicating that despite several notices to the bail

petitioner to join the investigation, the bail petitioner

was not forthcoming. The last notice dated 20.04.2024,

was sent to the bail petitioner through speed post

under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., but despite that he has

not jointed the investigation till date.

6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and

the conduct of the bail petitioner, the matter was listed

on 29.04.2024, when this Court had passed the

following orders:-

"Despite the earlier orders dated 05.04.2024 and 18.04.2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner- accused [Abhishek Kumar] has not joined the investigation before Investigating Officer, Nalagarh, till day.

Even, the bail-petitioner [Abhishek Kumar], has

not appeared before this Court on 18.04.2024 and even today (on 29.04.2024), in terms of Section 438 (1B) Cr.P.C.

2. Even, a perusal of the Status Report dated 28.04.2024, furnished to this Court [Taken on

.

record] indicates that despite several notice

under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, the bail-petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating Officer on 20.04.2024.

At this stage, learned vice counsel prays for adjournment. Prayer allowed, as not opposed. List the matter on 2nd May, 2024."

7. Besides the above conduct of the bail

petitioner, it is notable that in addition to the non-

cooperative conduct of the bail petitioner, as referred

to above, the status report reveals that the bail

petitioner [Abhishek Kumar] has no case on merits

also for the reason that the prima facie accusation is

made out against him and there are reasonable

grounds to prima facie belief that the accusation exist

against him which is clear from the material on record

in the status report including the CDR and the IMC

details and other material. Moreover, since the

petitioner is involved in the commission of the offence

under Section 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code

whereby he has doped the complainant [Om Parkash]

of Rs.7,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Lakh] by cheating and

by dishonestly inducing the complainant from

delivering the aforesaid amount online [bank account

.

including Paytm] in the account so furnished to the

complainant [Om Parkash], by the bail petitioner and

others collectively, who acted in conspiracy with each

other.

8. For ready reference, Section 420 and 120-B

r to of Indian Penal Code, are read as under:-

"420. 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.

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy-

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 1 [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."

Therefore, on merit also the accusation is

writ large and the bail petitioner is not entitled to the

.

concession of bail. Further the status report reveals

that the bail petitioner [Abhishek Kumar], had been

operating from different locations at different times,

not only in Himachal Pradesh, but from other States

by himself or at his instance by other incumbents, so

as to dope the person like the complainant [Om

Parkash], as referred to above. Though this Court on

11.01.2024, had granted the interim bail, but after

receipt of the status reports dated 01.02.2024,

19.03.2024, 02.04.2024, 17.04.2024 and the last

status report dated 28.04.2024, collectively points out

the prima facie accusation against the bail petitioner

and therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the

offence, as the bail petitioner has resorted to doping

the people by cheating them and such other

incumbents, therefore, this Court is not inclined to

extend the concession of bail to the bail petitioner.

Moreover, there is every likelihood that the bail

petitioner on being granted the bail shall flee away

from the investigation and the trial as he is a resident

of Village Isapur of Tehsil Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh and

there is every likelihood that the bail petitioner may

.

tamper with the evidence and the witnesses or shall

cause inducement, threat or promise to the

complainant [Om Parkash] or his family members.

In view of the larger societal interest also,

the claim for bail is dismissed.

9.

Today Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, on

instructions of the original counsel Mr. Prikshit

Rathour and Mr. Sangram Singh Chandel, Advocates,

states at the bar that the bail petitioner [Abhishek

Kumar], is neither coming forth in imparting

instructions, nor he is in touch with the counsels,

as referred to above, therefore, in these circumstance,

a prayer for withdrawing the instant bail application

has been made.

10. The prayer for withdrawing the instant bail

petition is also not opposed by the Learned State

Counsel also. That being so and keeping in view the

conduct of the bail petitioner, this Court is not inclined

to extend any concession of enlargement on bail in

favour of the bail petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the

prayer for withdrawing the instant petition, the instant

petition is permitted to be withdrawn and the interim

.

orders dated 11.01.2024, shall stand vacated.

11. Consequent upon the passing of this order,

withdrawing the bail petition and the vacation of the

interim order dated 11.01.2024, this Court orders the

cancellation of the personal and surety bonds of the

r to bail petitioner [Abhishek Kumar], forthwith.

In view of the orders passed today, this

Court directs the State Authorities/Police to take

consequential action for arresting the petitioner

immediately.

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

May 02, 2024 (Chiranjeev)