Dismissed¶59

Yugendra Chauhan v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2025CRMPM/698/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory/pre-arrest bail denied; cheating and criminal conspiracy by bank Branch Manager through spurious gold pledge; FIR 59/2024 PS Darlaghat; Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC; custodial interrogation held necessary; extraordinary and sparing exercise of Section 438 Cr.P.C. power; economic offence involving bank loss; transfer after incident no defence; petition dismissed (Cr. MP(M) 698/2025, decided 07.04.2025).

What did the court decide?

On the material on record, the petitioner had put fake gold in the packet of genuine gold in connivance with the co-accused, and having been transferred only after the incident, he derives no advantage from the transfer order to show he had no role in the crime. ¶41

Yugendra Chauhan Vs State of Hp — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

2025:HHC:9298

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP(M) No. 698 of 2025 Reserved on: 02.04.2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025

¶4

Yugendra Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 59 of 2024, dated 30.6.2024, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P. A written complaint was filed in Police Station Darlaghat about the loan of ₹4,21,000/- by pledging spurious gold in connivance with HDFC empanelled Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2025:HHC:9298

gold evaluator/assessor, Saheb Mondal and the Branch Manager-present petitioner. The petitioner was posted as Branch Manager at HDFC Rekong Peo at the time of the incident. The petitioner’s work profile does not include the sanctioning of a gold loan. Siddarth Shankar was dealing with the gold loan. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 10.6.2024. The petitioner sent a reply to the same. No action was taken by the Bank. Subsequently, another notice was issued by the Bank on 18.11.2024. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 28.11.2024. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated at the instance of Saheb Mondal against whom the petitioner had filed a complaint. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

¶14

The respondent-State has filed a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police asserting that the Bank advanced a gold loan to Gautam Bhaumik against the pledge of gold jewellery. This jewellery was assessed by Saheb Mondal. Gold Assessor of the Bank subsequently marked the jewellery pledged by Gautam Bhaumik as suspect. The borrower sent the notice to the petitioner to re-

¶15

¶16

2025:HHC:9298

¶17

evaluate the gold but the borrower did not visit the Branch. The bank opened the packet containing gold jewellery and found it to be fake. Its value was found to be ₹1,44,600/- against the value mentioned by Saheb Mondal as ₹4,21,208.72. The accused was posted as a Branch Manager. The police registered the FIR and conducted an investigation. The police arrested Saheb Mondal and Gautam Bhaumik. Police found that the gold loan was sanctioned based on fake gold in connivance with the petitioner. The petitioner had put the fake gold with the genuine gold in the packet. The police have to interrogate the petitioner. Hence the status report.

¶18

I have heard Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent-State.

¶19

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was transferred from the Branch on 27.3.2023. He had no authority to sanction the gold loan. The notice was served upon him after considerable time which showed that the bank was trying to protect someone. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which

¶20

¶21

2025:HHC:9298

¶22

the Court may impose. He is ready and willing to join the investigation if directed by the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶23

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner had connived with the other co-accused and put the fake gold with genuine gold. The petitioner has to be interrogated and the source of the gold is to be ascertained. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶24

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶25

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

¶26

“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly

¶27

¶28

2025:HHC:9298

¶29

exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

¶30

This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v.

¶31

State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 wherein it was held:

¶32

“25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently ft cases.” i

¶33

It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana,

¶34

(2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should

¶35

¶36

2025:HHC:9298

¶37

balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed:

¶38

“21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.”

¶39

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶40

The status report specifically mentions that the petitioner had put the fake gold in the packet of genuine gold in connivance with the co-accused. The transfer order shows that the petitioner was transferred after the incident. Therefore, no advantage can be derived from the transfer order to conclude that the petitioner had no role to play in the commission of crime.

¶41

¶42

2025:HHC:9298

¶43

The contents of the FIR show that the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager; hence, he was bound to protect the interest of the Bank, however, he disbursed the loan based on the fake gold causing a loss to the bank. Keeping in view the nature of the job held by the petitioner and the manner in which the fake gold was mixed with genuine gold, the plea of the prosecution that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required has to be accepted as correct.

¶44

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. It was observed: -

¶45

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitationoriented than questioning a suspect who is wellensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for such

¶46

¶47

2025:HHC:9298

¶48

an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police OfÏcers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender”

¶49

A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, wherein it was observed: -

¶50

“13. One of the signif i cant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more efective f to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection aforded f by a bail order insulates the suspect, and he could thwart interrogation, reducing it to futile rituals. But it must be also kept in mind that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and ef f ective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.”

¶51

It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant

¶52

of pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigation. It was observed:

¶53

“83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting useful information, and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences, would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate

¶54

¶55

2025:HHC:9298

¶56

and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.”

¶57