LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-112

VIVEK KUMAR LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On August 28, 2018
Vivek Kumar Lal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner, namely Vivek Kumar Lal, who is behind the bars since 5.7.2018, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C,, 1973 praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.9/2016, dated 3.4.2016, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 201, 217, 218, 201 and 120-B of IPC, Section 13(i)(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 5 and 7 of H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, registered at Police station, State CID, Bharari, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Pursuant to order dated 14.8.2018, Sh. Sandeep Dhawal, Superintendent of Poice(Crime) and HC Balbir Singh, Police Station CID Bharari have come present alongwith the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly stated that the investigation in the case is almost complete and at this stage, nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner. However, he stated that keeping in view the gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned Additional Advocate General further acknowledged that co-accused namely, Vinay Sharma, Vivek Gupta and Raj Kumar Saini had already been enlarged on bail. Learned Additional Advocate General further informed this Court that other co-accused, namely Himanshu Goel, who was GM Finance, has already joined the investigation, whereas Mr. Rakesh Sharma, who happened to the MD of the concerned company, has absconded and efforts are being made to arrest him. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General contended that in case this Court intends to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, he may be directed to join investigation as and when required/called by the investigating agency.