Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, J.
Amit Jha – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 593 OF 2017
Decided On : 06-07-2017
BAIL - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 364A, 420, 342, 120B, Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66-D - The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specific conditions and directed the trial judge to complete the trial expeditiously. The court also referred to principles laid down in previous judgments and emphasized the factors to be considered for granting bail in non-bailable offenses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a subsequent bail application based on observations made by the apex court in a specific case. The petitioner was charged with offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, related to duping and assaulting a complainant on the pretext of providing employment in a foreign country.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that completion of prosecution evidence alone was not sufficient to warrant a change of view. The court found no favorable circumstances for granting bail, as the trial was expedited and the prosecution did not delay the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the offenses and the stage of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principles for granting bail in non-bailable offenses, emphasizing factors such as presumption of innocence, seriousness of allegations, delay in trial, and likelihood of the offense being repeated.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the court directed that its observations should not influence the trial court's decision.
Sanjay Karol, J.
1. This is a subsequent bail application filed by petitioner Amit Jha on the strength of observations made by the apex court in Tarun Tejpal vs. State of Goa, (2015) 14 Supreme Court 481. This court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire judgment as under:
“1 Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
2. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(b) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he shall take prior permission of the Court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate Court and also to the investigating agency and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
(c) The petitioner will dispute his identity as the accused in the case.
(d) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear to an affidavit to that effect.
(e) We reserve liberty to the respondents to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
(f) The petitioner shall participate in the trial before the Trial Court.
(g) The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments of the trial.
3. We now direct the learned Trial Judge to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight months' time from today since the investigating agency has already filed its charge-sheet on 17-2-2014.
4. In order to facilitate the respondents to make an appropriate application, we intend to keep the matter on board. Ordered accordingly.”
2. It stands clarified that reliance is laid only on the aforesaid decision and not on the decisions referred to and relied upon in the bail application. The said decision is based on the given facts and circumstances not laying down any specific principle of law.
3. It is not in dispute that earlier bail application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 1.4.2017, passed in Cr.MPM No. 309 of 2017, titled as Amit Jha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. While dismissing the said bail application, this Court took into account the principles laid by the apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Vinod Bhandari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 11 SCC 502.
4. In relation to FIR No.41/2015, dated 2.3.2015, registered at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, accused-petitioner stands charged for having committed offences, punishable under Sections 364A, 420, 342, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 66-D of the IT Act, 2000. Such FIR came to be registered on the basis of complaint made by Arvind Singh that on the pretext of getting employment in a foreign country, present petitioner Amit Jha along with his co-accused Tarsem Singh, made him travel to Delhi, from where he was taken to Bagdogra and forced to part with a sum of Rs.22 lakhs. Not only he stood duped, as the promises turned out to be false, but at Bagdogra, kept in confinement and physically assaulted.
5. While deciding the earlier application, this Court took into account the allegations made by the complainant including the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Orissa and had had unscrupulously made the complainant part with valuable security on the pretext of getting him employed in a foreign country.
6. The prosecution has vehemently opposed the present bail application, inter alia, expres
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
