Allowed

Rakesh Tanta v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jul 2017CRMPM/716/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Rakesh Tanta moved for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in an FIR involving IPC sections 504, 506, 509 and IT Act section 67A. The court found cooperation in investigation and no risk of tampering or fleeing. Bail granted on personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety in the like amount.

Rakesh Tanta 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.716 of 2017. Decided on: 12^th July, 2017.

¶3

___________________________________________________ Rakesh Tanta ...Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent.

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. HC Ashish Kumar No.58, Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, present in person.

¶9

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).

¶10

The present bail application has been maintained by the

¶11

petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in case, FIR No.34 of 2017, dated 21.4.2017, under Sections 504, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (A) of Information and Technology Act, registered at Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.

¶12

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner has further averred that he is resident of the place and is not in a position to tamper

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

with the prosecution evidence and also not in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.

¶16

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, Rajeev Sapta (complainant) made a written complaint and stated that he was engaged with a girl (name withheld) about five years ago and he received a call on 2^nd January, 2017, from un-known number and the person calling him told that he should leave the girl with whom he is engaged and also threatened him that character of the girl is not good, otherwise he will be ruined by him. He also told him that he is having objectionable MMS etc. with him. The person calling the complainant also telephoned to the father of girl informing that the complainant is not having good character and threatened the father of a girl that if, he will marry his daughter with the complainant, he will ruin and defame all of them by putting the objectionable material in an around Rohru area. Police investigated the case and collected call details and registered the FIR against the petitioner. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the present bail application may be dismissed.

¶17

Heard. After going through the police report, this Court finds that the petitioner, who is resident of the place, is joining and cooperating in the investigation and no purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars, as it is evident from the record that petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the

¶18

¶19

prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, being resident of Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, (H.P). So, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in

¶20

this case, on his furnishing personal bond to the sum 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:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

Copy dasti.

¶26

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 12^th July, 2017 Judge (CS)

Rakesh Tanta v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Tanta 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

Mohinder Singh Vs Inder Singh

Mohinder Singh Vs Inder Singh

State of Hp Vs Om Prakash Chauhan

State Vs Rajinder Pal

Sanjeev Sharma Vs Ranjot Singh

State of H.P Vs Sita Ram