Dismissed

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Mar 2024CRMPM/250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a third successive petition for anticipatory bail filed by Dheeraj Kumar. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that successive applications are not maintainable when the accused has evaded investigation and failed to cooperate, rendering the petition unentertainable.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the third successive petition for anticipatory bail; withdrawn of interim protection granted on 16.02.2024.

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of Hp — Anticipatory Bail | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP(M) No. 250/2024 Reserved on: 27.02.2024 Decided on: 01.03.2024

¶4

______________________________________________________________ Dheeraj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹
For the petitioner : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur and Mr. Sunil Kumar Guleria, Advocates.
For the respondent : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General.

¶5

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶6

The instant application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 224 of 2023, dated 04.07.2023, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Una, H.P. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition can be

¶7

summarized as under:

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

2(a). On 04.07.2023, complainant Anita Rani

¶11

presented a complaint to the police, wherein, it has been alleged that suspended Secretary Dheeraj Kumar (petitioner herein), Auditor Rakhi Kumari and Auditor Parkash Chand, in connivance with one another, had illegally withdrawn an amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- invested by her and her husband Santokh Singh in the form of different FDRs in the Cooperative Society Nangal Salangri by forging the signatures. It has been further alleged that if a person withdraws FDR amount from the Society, original FDR is kept in record and the Auditor verify/recognize/validate the withdrawal by perusing original FDR, whereas, original FDRs are with the complainant. It has been also alleged that when the amount of FDRs of her husband was withdrawn, he was abroad. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR as detailed hereinabove came to be registered against the petitioner.

¶12

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for

¶13

¶14

the petitioner submitted that the investigation of the case is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as such, he deserves to be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the present is the third successive bail application and the same cannot be entertained being not maintainable.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case. Pertinently, the present is the third successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a bail application, being Cr. MP(M) No. 1987 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that there was

¶17

no exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr. PC to grant him

¶18

¶19

anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred a bail application being Cr.MP (M) No. 2893 of 2023 before this Court, seeking bail, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.12.2023. In Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , 2005 Criminal Law Journal 2086, it has been held that subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed only if there is a change in the fact situation or in law but a second or subsequent anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained on grounds of new circumstances, further development, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused and in no circumstances, the second or successive anticipatory bail application is maintainable. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision is reproduced as under:-

¶20

“25…………………"Second or subsequent anticipatory bail application shall not be entertained on the ground of new circumstances, further developments, different considerations, some more details, new documents or illness of the accused. Under no circumstances the second or successive anticipatory bail application shall be entertained by the Session Judge / Additional Sessions Judge."

¶21

6. In G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

¶22

and Another , (2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 725, it has

¶23

¶24

been held that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision is reproduced as under:-

¶25

“5. We have perused the status report submitted by the Investigating Officer before the High Court for consideration along with case diary, clearly indicating that custodial interrogation of respondent No. 2 is essential and the investigation is still incomplete. Nevertheless, on the third occasion, the learned Judge acceded to the request of respondent No. 2 and granted anticipatory bail, without referring to these crucial facts noted in the status report. None of the reasons cited by the learned Judge, in our opinion, can be said to be just basis to show indulgence to respondent No. 2.

¶26

6. As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.”

¶27

¶28

In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that after the dismissal of the earlier bail applications, the petitioner had not only evaded joining investigation and cooperating with the police, but had also evaded his arrest and the investigating agency had moved an application before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for declaring him as proclaimed offender. However, the petitioner was granted interim bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.02.2024 and he was ordered to join the investigation, but the perusal of the status report reveals that the petitioner was not cooperating with the Investigating Agency. The petitioner had misused the process of law by filing repeated petitions, this being the third petition for anticipatory bail. The matter is squarely covered in view of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in G.R. Ananda Babu's case (supra) for as per said decision, successive anticipatory bail applications were held to be not maintainable in view of the petitioner therein absconding and not cooperating in the investigation.

¶29

¶30

In the light of the position noted above, the

¶31

instant petition is dismissed and the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2024, stands withdrawn.

¶32

Before parting with this order, it is hereby clarified that the aforesaid observations made in this order, have been made only for the purpose of considering the present petition for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the same shall not come in the way of the trial court for considering the application that may be filed by the petitioner for regular bail or at the time of the trial and the trial Court concerned shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶33

( Sushil Kukreja ) March 01, 2024 Judge (raman)

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Runka Ram deceased through LRs Shri Anand Kumar and others Vs Harbans Lal

Krishan Chand (Deceased through LRs Rajinder Kumar and Others) Vs the Divisional Commissioner-Cum-Arbitrator Shimla and Others

Shiv Kumar and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Sohan Singh Vs Inder Sing

Oma Nand Alias Om Chand and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Sunil Sethi Vs the Union of India and Others