Allowed

Ringchhing Namgial Negi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Jun 2017CRMPM/342/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to two elderly retired petitioners charged with cheating and corruption. The court denied the prosecution's concern about evidence tampering due to the petitioners' age, location, and willingness to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in like amount subject to conditions to join investigation and not leave India.

Ringchhing Namgial Negi Vs State of Hp — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MPs (M) No. 342, 343 & 350 of 2017 Decided on: 27^th June, 2017

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 342 of 2017 Ringchhing Namgial Negi State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No. 343 of 2017 Mathra Dass Sharma State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No. 350 of 2017 Mathra Dass Sharma

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

…Respondent ....Petitioner Versus …Respondent ....Petitioner Versus …Respondent

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶11

For the petitioners : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. Mr. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, Dy. S.P. City, Shimla.

¶12

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral)

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

The present bail applications are maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail in case FIR No. 55/2017, dated 14.03.2017, under Sections 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P.

¶16

As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Further they are the residents of the place, ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon by the Police and also taking into consideration the age of the petitioners, they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice.

¶17

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, the petitioners have misused their lawful and legal position while performing the duties and have acted in fraudulent manner, they have cheated the HRTC, as well as the persons who have applied for the jobs at that relevant time. It is further averred that the documents are yet to be recovered from the petitioners and in case they are released on bail, there are chances that the petitioners will tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶18

Heard. Taking into consideration the fact that the case is based upon the documents, which are existing and

¶19

¶20

maintained in usual course of official business and the fact that the petitioners are about 70 years of age and now retired from the service and petitioners are joining and cooperating in the investigation. The petitioners are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or to flee from justice, as they are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, are to be considered.

¶21

After going through the Police report in detail and the averments made by learned counsel for the parties, the interest of justice demands that judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. So, it is ordered that in the event of their arrest in this case, the petitioners be released on bail, on their furnishing personal bond to the sum of ` 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each, with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶22

i. That the petitioner(s) will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

¶23

ii. That the petitioner(s) will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶24

iii. That the petitioner(s) 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.

¶25

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶26

Copy dasti .

¶27

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 27^th June, 2017 Judge (raman)

¶28

Ringchhing Namgial Negi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ringchhing Namgial Negi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Beas Valley Power Corporation Limited Vs Ms Continental Construction Projects Limited

Mahender Singh Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Ashok Kumar

Shyam Dass Vs Dina Nath Thakur

National Insurance Company Vs Neelam Verma

Kuldeep Verma and Another Vs State of Hp