SHYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 6.11.2019, whereby the bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 168 of 2019 dated 27.8.2019 under Sections 406, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, registered with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., H.C. Ravinder Kumar, I/O, has come present along with records. Mr. Sumesh Raj, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2.) Record reveals that on 27.8.2019, complainant Ashish Kumar, lodged a complaint at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, alleging therein that Sanjay Chauhan alias Sonu, who was engaged as driver by him to drive his truck bearing No. HP 62D-0646, has fled away with loaded truck of apple boxes. Above named complainant alleged that 218 apple boxes were loaded from Parala Mandi near Theog in the truck in question and on 23.8.2019, accused Sanjay Chauhan informed the complainant that he is going to Karnal for selling the apple boxes, but thereafter he switched off his mobile phone. Complainant tried his best to contact the driver, but on inquiry it transpired that though toll tax was paid at Panchkula toll, but truck in question did not move beyond that point. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police started investigation and recovered truck at a place called Shahbad, Haryana. Police also recovered documents of truck in question and one consignment slip/Bilty amounting to Rs. 2,47, 894/-. On 6.10.2019, above named accused Sanjay Kumar, surrendered at PS Dhalli and during investigation, disclosed that owner of truck had handed over 218 apple boxes to be sold at Panipat, but he in connivance with his friend Shyam Singh i.e. present bail petitioner, sold 218 apple boxes at Rajpura Mandi, Patiala, for a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- and thereafter, divided the aforesaid amount in equal shares. On the basis of aforesaid information shared by the accused Sanjay Kumar, who is otherwise on interim bail, police registered a case against the present bail petitioner under Sections 406 , 120-B and 34 of IPC.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating Officer, fairly stated that investigation in the case is complete, and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner save and except sum of Rs. 36, 000/-, payable to the complainant. Mr. Sumej Raj, learned Additional Advocate General while opposing prayer made on behalf of the petitioner strenuously argued that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection.