JOLLY BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 12 of 2013 dated 14.6.2014 registered under Sections 292, 465, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and under Section 66E and 67A of the Information Act 2000 at Police Station CID Bharari District Shimla HP.

(2.) IT is pleaded that applicant is 50 years of age and is established member of the society and having deep roots in the society. It is further pleaded that applicant is a doctor by profession with specialization in field of Cardiology and is practising at Delhi Metro Heart Institute a well -known hospital for cardiac services across India. It is further pleaded that applicant is suffering from pre -frontal lobe -space occupying lesion with cancerous tumor growth in brain and had undergone surgery in the past and at present he is on prescription of oral chemotherapy and is continuously under medication of tablet used for oral chemotherapy i.e. 'Sutin'. It is further pleaded that on dated 14.6.2011 one person by name Hem Singh who was the cook of the then Telecom Minister Pundit Sukh Ram sent a complaint against one Jhonny Bansal to Police Station CID Bharari Shimla HP inter alia alleging that at around 6 AM he found one CD lying on the stairs leading to his house. It is further pleaded that he witnessed a person resembling with the face of Ex Central Minister Pundit Sukh Ram having sexual intercourse with some lady and expressed doubt that one person by name Jolly Bansal had made CD and circulated the same in the city in order to harm and destroy the image of Pundit Sukh Ram. It is further pleaded that on the complaint of Hem Singh FIR No. 12 of 2013 under Sections 292, 465, 469 and 471 IPC and under Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986 and under Section 66E and 67A of the Information Act 2000 was registered at Police Station CID Bharari Shimla HP against applicant. It is further pleaded that in the month of August 2013 investigating agency at Police Station CID Bharari Shimla HP called the applicant at Himachal Bhawan Mandi House New Delhi and inquired about the alleged incident dated 14.6.2013. It is further pleaded that on dated 20.10.2013 a notice was issued by Police Station CID Bharari Shimla HP to applicant directing him to appear before them. It is further pleaded that on dated 22.10.2013 being aggrieved by notice dated 20.10.2013 and in apprehension of arrest applicant filed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC before learned Sessions Judge Saket Court New Delhi. It is further pleaded that on 23.10.2013 learned Sessions Judge Saket Court New Delhi granted interim bail to applicant. It is further pleaded that on dated 29.10.2013 a certificate was issued by SHO Police Station CID Bharari Shimla stating that applicant along with his Advocate Sh Rajesh Kaushik attended the office. It is further pleaded that on dated 8.11.2013 learned Sessions Judge Saket Court New Delhi dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. It is further pleaded that on dated 18.11.2013 applicant filed an application under Section 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Sessions Judge Shimla. It is further pleaded that on dated 22.11.2013 applicant was granted interim pre -arrest bail in FIR No. 12 of 2013 dated 14.6.2014. It is further pleaded that on dated 28.11.2013 bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn as learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant made statement that learned Sessions Judge at Shimla has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the bail application of applicant as the alleged incident pertains to District Mandi. It is further pleaded that on dated 14.4.2014 SHO Police Station CID Bharari Shimla made application for issuance of warrant of arrest of applicant before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi. It is further pleaded that on dated 19.4.2014 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the applicant. It is further pleaded that on dated 12.5.2014 a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC was issued against the applicant by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi and the applicant was summoned to be present on dated 10.7.2014. It is further pleaded that applicant had deep roots in the society and there is no likely hood of applicant running from trial. It is further pleaded that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further pleaded that applicant was a personal Physician of Pundit Sukh Ram and the matter was covered by both electronic and print media and is in knowledge of Pundit Sukh Ram. It is further pleaded that applicant had already joined investigation in November 2013 and always co -operate with the investigating agency and further undertakes to fully co -operate with investigation. It is further pleaded that applicant had no direct and indirect concern with manufacturing and distribution of CD. It is further pleaded that applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in present case. It is further pleaded that all the offences as alleged in FIR No. 12 of 2013 are bailable offences except offence under Section 67A of Information Technology Act 2000. Prayer for acceptance of bail application sought.

(3.) COURT heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused record carefully.