Regular bail application in a job-abroad cheating case under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Charge sheet filed and no witness-tampering risk shown; the court granted bail with conditions including passport surrender and police intimation of travel.
Petitioner released on bail of ₹1,00,000 with two like sureties, subject to stated conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 816 of 2024 Reserved on: 10.6.2024 Date of Decision: 17.06.2024.
Rohit Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. : For the Respondent Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the police of Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC vide FIR No. 159 of 2023, dated 8.6.2023. The petitioner is innocent. There is no chance of his absconding or jumping over
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
the bail. He would join the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.
3
12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be
4
exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;
(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.
13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
5
documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from nonapplication of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:
( a ) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)”
7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the relevant principles were restated thus:
‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
6
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’
release on bail. Therefore, the custody of the petitioner is not justified.
7
8
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner arrested under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC for allegedly cheating persons on the pretext of sending them abroad for jobs should be released on regular bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip KumarRelied on¶7
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu YadavRelied on¶7
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 · Who else cites this
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan SinghReferred
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] · Who else cites this
Puran v. RambilasReferred
Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. DharamrajRelied on¶8
State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085 · Who else cites this
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis ChatterjeeRelied on¶8
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohit Sharma
State of Himachal Pradesh
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
