K B VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the petitions arise out of same and similar FIR, same were taken up together for being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) By way of these petitions filed under Section 438 CrPC, petitioners have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 102/2016 dated 24.5.2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, HP. Vide order date 16.1.2017, this Court granted interim bail to the petitioners subject to the condition that they shall join the investigation as and when called by the investigating agency. On 27.1.2017, it was informed that the petitioners have joined the investigation, accordingly, order dated 16.1.2017, was ordered to be continued. However, on 17.2.2017, this Court, after perusing status report having been filed by the police, granted three weeks' time to the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 21,42,000/- in total in the Registry of this Court, disbursement whereof was made subject to the final outcome of the verdict(s) pronounced by the competent Court of law. In the aforesaid background, Court ordered the matter to be listed on 17.3.2017, and, till then, interim order made in favour of the petitioners was continued. On 17.3.2017, petitioners sought modification of order dated 17.2.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, but since no formal application for modification was filed, matter was ordered to be listed before appropriate Bench. On 21.3.2017, matter came to be listed before this Court, on which date, petitioners moved application under Section 482 CrPC for modification of order dated 17.2.2017, whereby petitioners were directed to deposit amount as referred above, within three weeks.

(3.) Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. V.S. Rathour, Advocate, while inviting attention to aforesaid application stated that condition as imposed in Order dated 17.2.2017, is very harsh and, by no stretch of imagination, petitioners could be directed to deposit the entire amount, because, mere deposit, if any, of same by the petitioners would amount to admission on their part. Mr. Pathak, further stated that petitioners are not in a position to fulfill the condition imposed by this Court and as such order dated 17.2.2017, may be suitably modified by removing condition of depositing amount by the petitioners. Mr. Pathak also stated that, compliance, if any, of the condition as imposed in order dated 17.2.2017, shall cause undue pressure on the petitioners, who are already in financial crisis. He further stated that since matter is to be finally adjudicated by competent court of law, on the basis of material adduced on record by the investigating agency, it shall not be in the interests of justice if petitioners are put to unreasonable condition of depositing disputed amount, as it would adversely affect their rights before the competent court of law, which may ultimately decide the trial pending against them. He also placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2013 15 SCC 570 and another judgment of Apex Court in Rakesh Baban Borhade v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 2 SCC 313. Lastly, Mr. Pathak contended that, if petitioners are directed to deposit some reasonable amount to show their bona fide, they shall deposit the same within reasonable period and shall also join the investigation, as and when called by the investigating agency.