SACHIN KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIRs No. 8, 9 and 12 to 15, under Sections 406 IPC, registered in Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present cases. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail.

(3.) Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 08.07.2019 police received a complaint from complainant Shri Arun Dhanta wherein it is alleged that in the year 2015 he sold apples in a firm known as KFC, Dhalli, but till date he did not receive any payment. The complainant further alleged that the payment of Rs.4,38,939/- is recoverable. The complainant requested the police for assistance to get his payment released from the aforesaid firm. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that the aforesaid firm was registered in the name of the petitioner. Investigation further revealed that on different dates the petitioner purchased apples from the complainant and total amount of Rs. 4,38,939/- was payable. Out of the total amount the petitioner paid only Rs. 1,00,000/-. The petitioner joined the investigation and divulged that the firm is registered in his name, but his father used to operate it and on 23.08.2019 he died in a road accident. The petitioner further divulged that he does not know about the purchase of apples from the complainant. The petitioner could not produce any records qua the sale purchase of the apples. During further course of investigation it was unearthed that many FIRs have been registered against the said firm and after the death of the father of the petitioner closure reports have been filed in some cases and some FIRs are against the petitioner for similar offence. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner is habitual in usurping the money of innocent people. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his applications be dismissed.