SACHIN DATTA RATHOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Sachin Datta Rathod, who is in custody since 1711.2017, has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 439 CrPC, praying therein for regular bail, in case FIR No. 126/17 dated 7.11.2017 under Sections 505(2), 124A, 419, 420, 511 and 201 IPC, registered at Police Station, East, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 26.12.2017, ASI Gopinder Paul has come present with the record. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the investigating agency, perusal whereof suggests that FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged at the behest of complainant namely Harbans Lal, Election Officer, who after having received complaints from the candidates contesting elections to Himachal Pradesh State Legislative Assembly, reported the matter to the police that one candidate received a telephonic call from mobile No. 070930-34540. The person speaking from aforesaid number claimed that he could manipulate the results of the Assembly elections in their favour by sabotaging/ manipulating the EVMs/VVPATs. Police, on the basis of aforesaid statement made by the complainant under Section 154 CrPC, lodged a formal FIR as stated above. Record reveals that in the investigation, police found involvement of the present bail petitioner and accordingly, registered a case against him under various provisions of law, as have been taken note above. Bail petitioner came to be arrested on 17.11.2017, whereafter, he approached learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, for grant of bail. Same was rejected vide order dated 12.12.2017. Perusal of order dated 12.12.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge suggests that since investigation was at initial stage and certain reports were yet to be received by the investigating agency, learned Court below rejected the bail of the bail petitioner on the ground that enlargement of bail petitioner, at this stage, may hamper investigation.

(3.) Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the record/status report contended that investigation in the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. Mr. Thakur, further contended that though perusal of record /status report clearly suggests that no case is made out against the bail petitioner, but otherwise also, investigation is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, because he has already made available required documents as well as instrument allegedly used by him while spreading rumour with regard to EVM's/VVPATs.