PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No.57/2019 dated 15.6.2019, under Section 418, 419, 420, 467,468 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Luhri, Anni, District Kullu. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner vide order 22.11.2019, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Fresh status report stands filed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In my considered view, the interim protection granted to the petitioner on 22.11.2019, deserves to be made absolute for the following reasons:- as per the status report, complaint was lodged by one Sachin Gupta, on 13.6.2019, to the effect that he had advanced an amount of Rs.2,51,000/- to M/s Lizza Consumer Goods Pvt. Ltd for procuring certain goods; bail petitioner is Director of this company; the goods were not dispatched to the complainant despite repeated requests; complainant pressed for refund of money back from the petitioner and also to take action against the wrongdoers for harassing him, whereafter instant FIR No.57/2019 was registered under Section 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. As per status report, complainant had credited a sum of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.2,40,000/-, via NEFT on 9.5.2019 and 14.05.2019, respectively to M/s Lizza Consumer Goods Pvt. Ltd; neither the amount has been refunded to the complainant, nor the supply order against which the amount was credited has been honoured.

(3.) It has been submitted in the bail petition that the goods were actually sent to the complainant against the supply order, but the complainant returned the goods back without assigning any reasons, whereafter the supply order was diverted to some other place. It has been further averred that the bail petitioner has intention to repay the amount to the complainant. The present dispute appears to be more of civil nature at this stage. It is not in dispute that the bail petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 22.11.2019, has joined the investigation and is cooperating with the investigating agency. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner in judicial custody at this stage.