Dismissed

Yog Raj v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Sept 2017CRMPM/904/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, accused of cheque-related offences and suspected involvement in vehicle tampering, was held not eligible for bail as he remained uncooperative with the investigation and had not provided truthful information regarding the tracing of stolen or impounded vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 438 CrPC dismissed; directions for the issuance of search and seizure warrants executed.

Yog Raj Vs State of Hp — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. M.P. (M) No. 904 of 2017

¶3

Date of Decision: September 13, 2017

¶4

Yog Raj ..… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. ….. Respondent

¶7

Coram

¶8

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

¶9

Whether approved for reporting? Yes

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Virender K. Verma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondent-State

¶11

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral) :

¶12

The present petition has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail in case FIR No. 67 of 2016, dated 22.10.2016, for the offences, punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P.

¶13

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been

¶16

falsely implicated in this case. Further, the petitioner is joining and cooperating with the investigation as and when asked for by the Investigation Agency and not in a position to flee from justice. He further stated that he is having old aged parents and two minor children and in case he is arrested, they will also suffer. As per petitioner, he undertakes to join investigation and cooperating in the investigation as and when required. He be released on bail.

¶17

Police report stands filed. As per prosecution, on 22.10.2016, one Lekh Ram son of Shri Sunder Ram, resident of Village Kyard, Post Office Bharighat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan H.P. visited Police Station Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan

¶18

and stated that he is permanent resident of Village Kayrad, District Solan and his Truck bearing registration No. HP62-2311 has been stolen which was purchased by him in the year, 2013 and the same was deputed for carrying material in JP Company

¶19

Baga. Due to less work of carrying material with JP Company Baga, he has parked his truck about five months ago in a corner of road and when he went to see his truck on 13.09.2016, the truck was not found standing there, whereas,

¶20

he had seen the truck very much standing there on 12.09.2016,

¶21

¶22

He has stated that he inquired about the truck from nearby people and shopkeepers but no clue about missing of the truck was found. Despite all efforts being made by him, he failed to trace out the vehicle. Qua this, an FIR was registered in Police Station Darlaghat. The I.O. Ram Narayan visited the spot and map etc, were prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. All the documents with regard to stolen vehicle bearing registration No. HP-62-2311 were taken into possession and also inquired about the same from many persons. After investigation, it was found that the truck of complainant Lekh Ram, which was stolen, was being plied with the JP Company in the name of Mast Ram, resident of Karog and in this truck, there is a plate bearing No. HP-51A-1677. When this information found correct, the alleged truck bearing No. HP-51A-1677 was brought for inspection in the police Station and was inspected through experts of FSL Junga. As per FSL Junga report, the truck which is being run in the name of Mast Ram, truck bearing No. HP-51A-1677, in LPT, chassis No. MAT 373141D5B21640 and its original chassis No. MAT 373339D1E05483, front Axle No. 5161WY37406 and rear Axle No. 5162204WY433400 were found tempered. In this truck , the original chassis number as per investigation were found of the stolen truck bearing

¶23

¶24

registration No. HP-62-2311 and Chassis and Axle number are found same, from which it has been recognized that the above said truck No. HP51A-1677 which is being plied by Mast Ram in Baga, is factually is the truck which was stolen bearing registration No. HP-62-2311. Therefore, the police has taken into custody Truck No. HP 51A-1677. During this, Yog Raj has filed bail petition in this Hon’ble High Court and after the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the matter was investigated in detail and it was found that truck bearing registration No. NL02Q-1584 was purchased in Chandigarh from one Shri Ramesh Kumar and about for 2 years, this truck was used for carrying articles in Chandigarh and this truck was being driven by one Rajesh Kumar @ Kaku. After plying this truck at Chandigarh, on receipt of NOC from Nagaland, this truck was registered by agent namely at Shimla, but Yog Raj has neither disclosed about Ramesh Kumar, his address, about the Transport Company and he has also not given any information about the residence of driver Rajesh to the Police. As per Yog Raj, aforesaid truck NL02Q1584 through one Sanjeev Gautam was sold to Mast Ram and on demand of documents, he failed to produce the same and further he has not provided information about agent. On disclosure of name of Sanjeev Gautam, he was also interrogated

¶25

¶26

and on asking he told that being an agent he used to purchase

¶27

this vehicle for Mast Ram resident of Karog and he do not know about anything else. With regard to sale purchase of the truck, nothing has been produced before the police and Yog Raj is only telling that all the documents have been submitted before RLA (Rural), Shimla through agent.

¶28

As per FSL Junga report the truck which is being

¶29

run in the name of Mast Ram, bearing No. HP-51A-1677, in LPT

¶30

front Axle and rear Axle were found tempered. On investigation, it was found that Yog Raj has prepared fake documents of the alleged truck No. HP51A-1677 and after tempering chassis number this vehicle sold through Sanjeev Gautam to Mast Ram whereas this vehicle was found as stolen vehicle No. HP62-2311 and as such FIR was registered under Sections 420,465, 467, 120-B IPC. In the entire episode, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of other persons. Yog Raj was interrogated but he is not telling the truth and is suppressing the material facts. It is yet to be found from Yog Raj that who are the persons factually involved in preparing fake documents and also to temper with the chassis and Axle number. It is not come on record that factually Truck No. HL02Q-1584 has been purchased or not because as per

¶31

¶32

investigation, Yog Raj and Mast Ram both have not given the documents pertaining to truck No HP 51A-1677 with regard to sale and purchase of this vehicle to the police. Yog Raj lastly come for investigation on 29.07.2017 and disclosed that vehicle No. HP17D-1530 was to be inspected and he told that this vehicle is stationed at the house of his friend and he was again called for 30.07.2017 and he visited the police on 30.07.2017 at about 11.00 AM but aforesaid vehicle was not produced by him

¶33

to police nor he told about this vehicle. He was also inquired about change of plate but he is not disclosing truth about the same. He is only stating that this number plat was put by one boy but in case his name is disclosed his career will be ruined. Yog Raj is not cooperating intentionally to the police.

¶34

Heard. Learned counsel for petitioner, submits that the petitioner is joining investigation as and when he was asked to do so. It is further stated that he remained admitted in the Hospital and immediately on discharge from the Hospital, he has gone to police Station but Investigating Officer has not met him. He states that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation as and when called to do so.

¶35

On the other hand learned Additional Advocate

¶36

General submits that in fact the petitioner is not disclosing the

¶37

¶38

true facts with regard to the address of Ramesh Kumar from whom he purchased the truck NL02Q-1584 nor the truck is recoverable. He argued that many other aspects which came in investigation, the petitioner is not telling about the same and not cooperating in the investigation. He argued that the recoveries are to be effected and as such prayed for dismissal of bail.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal vehemently argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with the truck as he has already sold the said truck to someone else and those are the real culprits and the petitioner is being involved without any basis. He has argued that the petitioner is required to be released on bail and no purpose will be served in putting the petitioner behind the bar.

¶40

After going through the police report and after hearing learned counsel to the petitioner, it is found that the petitioner is involved in the sale of truck bearing Registration NL02Q-1584 and is responsible to change registration number of the truck bearing registration No. HP-51A-1677 and the recovery of the truck stolen as well as the name and address of person who are involved in the said episode are yet to be traced out and the petitioner is not co-operating and telling truth. Also taking into

¶41

¶42

consideration the complicated facts which come on record, this Court finds that the investigation still is in the initial stage and after going through all the aspects of the case, this Court comes

¶43

to the definite conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise

¶44

judicial direction in favour of the petitioner.

¶45

The instant petition is devoid of merits, require to be

¶46

dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.

¶47

Copy ‘Dasti’.

¶48

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶49

September 13, 2017 brb

Yog Raj v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yog Raj 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 Vardhman Industries Vs Vivek Saini

Moti Singh Vs State of Hp

Shyam Singh Vs State of Hp

Shobha Ram Vs Bhavan Kumar

Hrtc Vs Kumari Devi

Kamal Kumar Singh Vs State of Hp