Allowed

Roop Lal v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC22 May 2017CRMPM/386/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail under CrPC 438 against registration of charges for cheating and forgery involving falsified age records. The Court granted bail, ordering release upon furnishing a bond, citing his residence and lack of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in like amount, subject to conditions.

Roop Lal Vs State of Hp — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	Cr.MP(M) No. 386 of 2017 Decided on: 22^ndMay, 2017
Roop Lal	....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the petitioner:	Ms. Archna Dutt and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocates.
For the respondent/State:	Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General.
	SI Ashok Kumar, Police Station S.V. &
	ACB, Chamba.

¶6

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

¶7

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR is registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), Police Station S.V & ACB, Chamba.

¶8

As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus he may be released on bail.

¶9

Police reports stand filed. As per the prosecution story, on 18.02.2017, complainant, Rattan, made a complaint to the police wherein he has alleged that the petitioner, by producing wrong date of birth certificate, got job in Public Works Department. Acting upon the

¶10

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

¶11

2 said complaint, police started investigations and it was

¶12

unearthed that there was variance qua the date of birth of the petitioner in different certificates. As per the panchayat record, his date of birth is 01.06.1959, however, according to the records of Block Elementary Education Officer, Garola, his date of birth is 01.06.1951. It has also come in the investigation that apparently there has been tampering with the panchayat records qua the date of birth of the petitioner. Thus, file for registering an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against the petitioner has been sent to the office of D.A. and opinion in the matter has been sought from the Prosecution Department. Accordingly, the complaint has been sent to Superintendent of Police on 20.05.2017 for registration of a case. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent is likely to register a case against the petitioner and he is apprehending his arrest. He has further argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He is resident of place and is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidenced and also not in a position to flee from justice. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime of cheating and he has managed to tamper

¶15

with the public records, so the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶16

¶17

At this stage, taking into consideration the facts that

¶18

the petitioner is a resident of the place, he is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice and also taking into consideration the fact that he is apprehending his arrest, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in a case, which may be registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of `10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

¶23

Copy dasti .

¶24

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 22^nd May, 2017 Judge (virender)

Roop Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Lal 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

Chetan Chauhan Vs State of Hp

Hrtc Vs Madan Lal

Brij Lal Vs State of Hp

Sunka Vs Ram Dhan

Nidhu Ram Vs Krishana Devi

Mukesh Kumar Alias Mintu Vs State of Hp