ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 136 of 2017, dated 20.05.2017, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 24 of the Passports Act, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of Ludhiana (Punjab) and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus he may be released on bail.

(3.) Police reports stand filed. As per the prosecution story, on 20.05.2017 complainant, Shri Aman Joshi, made a complaint to the police alleging that the petitioner met him in the month of March, 2016, and he told to his father that he does the work of making work permits of youth for sending them abroad. The petitioner also told that he would send the complainant on work permit to Australia and the petitioner demanded rupees twenty five lac for doing so. The petitioner also told that he would take rupees twenty lac beforehand and rest of the money after the approval of the viza. Thereafter, the complainant and his father on different dates gave rupees twenty lac in total to the petitioner for sending the complainant to Australia and the petitioner also took the passport, school certificates and eight passport size photographs of the complainant. After lapse of considerable time, the complainant did nothing and on asking he used to give evasive replies. Lastly, when the complainant asked for return of his money, then the petitioner threatened to do away with his life. The complainant also alleged that he is apprehending that his passport and other documents may be illegally used by the petitioner. On the basis of the above complaint of the complainant, police registered a case against the petitioner. Police investigated the matter and found that on the pretext of sending the complainant to Australia, the petitioner took the money from the complainant. The petitioner was interrogated and he divulged that being contractor he entered into an agreement to execute the construction work of a hotel in Damtal and the said hotel was being constructed by four partners, viz., Moti Lal (father of the complainant), Aman Joshi (complainant), Raj Vikram Rai and Ram Muhammad Isa @ Rami. He also handed over a copy of said agreement. Raj Vikram Rai disclosed that he is building a hotel on his land and he entered into a contract for construction work of the said hotel with the petitioner. He also disclosed that Moti Lal and Aman Joshi have no concern with the hotel. The petitioner further divulged that the hotel for which he has been engaged, grand-mother of Aman Joshi is also partner therein, however, grand-mother of Aman Joshi disclosed that no land is registered in her name at Damtal. The petitioner also disclosed that he took the decoration work of the hotel for thirty one/thirty two lac, but due to non-payment, he left the work amidst. It was unearthed during the investigation that the petitioner and Raj Vikram Rai have entered into the agreement and Raj Vikram Rai is the owner of the hotel. The matter was reinvestigated and it was found that in DR Resorts, Damtal, Aman Joshi, Moti Lal, Raj Vikram Rai, Ram Muhammad Isa @ Rami and Savitri Devi are the partners. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is not disclosing true facts and is also not co-operating in the investigation. The petitioner is very clever person and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice.