YASHWANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been stated that F.I.R. No. 326 of 2023, dtd. 28/11/2023, has been registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. The prosecution case is based upon an absurd, baseless and imaginary story. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The investigation is continuing and sometime would be taken in the filing of the charge sheet. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition, which was dismissed and the present petition is being filed due to material change in the circumstances because the case property has been released and nothing is to be investigated. The charge sheet has not yet been filed even after the expiry of 90 days. The petitioner joined the investigation earlier as per the orders passed by the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on pre-arrest bail.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the mobile number of co-accused Gurmeet Singh was used for uploading the Form No. 35. OTP was received on the mobile phone and the process of change of ownership was completed with the mobile number of co-accused Gurmeet Singh. The Document Writer stated that the affidavit of Hemraj was prepared at the instance of co-accused Gurmeet. Hem Raj also stated that he had handed over the truck to co-accused Gurmeet Singh for plying the same and he had not sold the Truck to Yashwant. The affidavit was prepared on the pretext that co-accused Gurmeet Singh would be responsible for the damages arising out of the use of the vehicle. A loan of Rs.23,51,503.00 is still payable to IndusInd Bank. Form No. 35 was uploaded without payment of the loan. The vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner and he is to be interrogated regarding the process of forgery. The laptop, computer and the seals used for forging the documents are yet to be recovered. The petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation earlier and his custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Yug Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.