ASIF Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 2.3.2020, whereby petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 80, dated 4.12.2019, under Ss. 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC registered at Police Station CID Bharari (Shimla,), Himachal Pradesh, SI Anil Kumar, CID/Crime Branch, Shimla and HC Suresh Kumar, SIT have come present with the record. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed on record status report prepared by the investigating agency on the basis of investigation carried out by it. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Record/status report reveals that various complaints having been filed by APMC, Dhalli with regard to misappropriation of money by few traders came to be investigated by the SIT constituted by Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh pursuant to orders of Government of Himachal Pradesh. One of the complainants, Anupal Chauhan, Proprietor of M/s Aman Fruit Company, Parala, Mandi lodged a complaint that since the years 2017-18, persons namely Altaf and Asif had been coming to his shop for purchasing apple crop. He alleged that aforesaid persons purchased apple crop to the tune of Rs. 88,95,262/- from him and sent the same to their company i.e. MCA (Md. Altaf Co. Bangalore). Complainant alleged that though the above named persons have paid Rs. 60,55,237 but still Rs.28,40,025/- is payable. Complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, above named persons have failed to repay aforesaid amount, as a consequence of which he has not only suffered huge financial loss but is also being threatened with dire consequences by the local persons, to whom he owes money on account of purchase of their apple crop. Since consignment of apple crop as noticed herein above was given to the bail petitioner, who happened to be son of a person namely Altaf, police also registered case against him. SIT investigated the matter and after having carefully verified/checked bank account details of complainant, Anupal Chauhan as well as bail petitioner, arrived at a conclusion that a sum of Rs.28,40,025/- is still payable as such, registered a case against the petitioner under Ss. 420, 406, 506 and 120B IPC .

(3.) Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on instruction, while fairly admitting that bail petitioner has joined the investigation, contended that since few bills with regard to purchase of apple consignment and bilties are yet to be made available by bail petitioner, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail at this stage. Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General further stated that apart from aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.28,40,025/- is still payable by the bail petitioner to the complainant. Lastly, Mr. Thakur contended that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice as he hails from Karnataka, as such, prayer for bail deserves to be rejected.