Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 809
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Manish Lal Shrivastava - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1734 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2020
Romil Pathak, Advocate, Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate, Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate, Bharat Barowalia, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a balanced approach in granting anticipatory bail, considering the evidence, interests of all stakeholders, and the application of reasonable conditions, including the option of fixed deposit instead of bond amount.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Allegations of conniving with a lady for opening a fictitious bank account and selling a fake marksheet - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 468, 471, 201, 120B - The court analyzed the evidence against the petitioner and found it insufficient to justify pre-trial incarceration. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders and safeguard the accused's rights. The court also discussed the application of law on fixed deposit instead of bond amount, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions for granting bail and the discretion of the judge to impose conditions. The court referred to various judicial precedents and legislative provisions to support its decision to allow the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of conniving with a lady to open a fictitious bank account and selling a fake marksheet. The police registered an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code based on the complaint of the Registrar of Arni University.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence against the petitioner insufficient to justify pre-trial incarceration and emphasized the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders. The court also discussed the application of law on fixed deposit instead of bond amount, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions for granting bail and the discretion of the judge to impose conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in light of the allegations against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the evidence against the petitioner, the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders, and the application of law on fixed deposit instead of bond amount. The court referred to various judicial precedents and legislative provisions to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's anticipatory bail application, subject to specific conditions, and emphasized the need for reasonable conditions for granting bail.
Key Points: - The court must balance evidence, stakeholder interests, and reasonable conditions including fixed deposit options when granting anticipatory bail (!) (!) . - The accused has the right to choose between furnishing sureties or depositing a fixed sum equivalent to the bail amount (!) (!) (!) . - Cash deposit cannot be mandated as a condition for bail; it must be at the option of the accused (!) (!) (!) . - Bail conditions must be reasonable, performable, and tied to the accused’s financial capacity and case specifics (!) (!) (!) . - Fixed deposits are permissible under Section 445 of the CrPC as an alternative to sureties and are enforceable similarly (!) (!) (!) . - The accused must cooperate with the investigation and attend all court proceedings as a condition of bail (!) (!) . - Any breach of bail conditions may lead to cancellation of bail at the State’s application (!) (!) . - The judgment applies specifically to the FIR mentioned and does not operate as a blanket bail order (!) (!) .
What is the core legal question regarding anticipatory bail in this case? [p_2]
What are the conditions under which fixed deposit can be substituted for bail bonds? [p_14][p_16]
What are the rights and obligations of the accused if anticipatory bail is granted? [p_104][p_105][p_106]
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner, a resident of Lucknow, is apprehending his imminent arrest on being arraigned as accused in an FIR on the allegations of conniving with a lady for opening a fictitious bank account, and receiving consideration for selling a fake marksheet, came up under Section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Based on the complaint of Registrar of Arni University, Indora, District Kangra, HP, the police registered FIR No. 289 of 2018, dated 24.10.2018, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 201, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), in Police Station Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and nonbailable offences.
3. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 24th October 2018, Shri Sangram Singh Guleria, Registrar of Arni University, visited Police Station, Indora filed a complaint that on 23.8.2018, one Gaurav Sharma, resident of Muzaffarnagar UP, came to the University for taking his Migration and Degree and he produced his DMC. When they tallied the DMC with their records, the same was found to be forged. After that, they detained said Gaurav Sharma and on inquiry, he disclosed that he has got this DMC from one Amit Kumar son of Shri Rishipal, resident of District Muzaffarnagar, UP, for payment of Rs.80,000/- (eighty thousand only). Subsequently, Gaurav Sharma telephonically called his father, who came to Indora along with the person, who had given the degree of BBA and DMC to Gaurav. The University people also detained Amit and produced them before the Police. On these allegations, the police registered the FIR mentioned above. Accused Gaurav Sharma in his interrogation disclosed that he had obtained this forged marks-sheet through Amit Kumar for consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. Police arrested Gaurav Sharma and Amit Kumar. During the investigation, accused Amit Kumar disclosed that he has obtained the forged marks sheet from Kuldeep Kumar and Abhishek Pal for Rs. 80,000/- and told Gaurav Sharma that he could obtain his degree and migration from Arni University. Similarly, third accused Abhishek Pal was also interrogated and he disclosed that he has received the DMC of BBA of 1st Semester to 6th Semester from Arvind Kumar and gave the same to Kuldeep Kumar on payment of Rs. 80,000/-, and Police also arrested Arvind Kumar on 24.10.2018. During the investigation, accused Arvind Kumar disclosed that he had met a lady named Shivani Arora @ Aruna Arora, who told him that she was Registrar in Arni University and the said lady had given the marks-sheet of Arni University to him after packing the same in an envelope, and he further handed it over to Abhishek Pal @ Deepak. He has also disclosed that Shivani Arora, was previously residing at Meerut and now residing at Jawalapur, Haridwar and she had opened an account in the name of Arni University in Bank of India, Haridwar. After that, on 22.11.2018, the Investigator obtained the details of the account from the Bank of India, Haridwar. A perusal of the account details reveals that Shivani Arora and M. Lal have opened an account in the name of Arni University on 10.07.2018 and Arvind had deposited initially Rs.10/- and thereafter Rs.49,990/- in that account on 9.8.2018. During the investigation, the details of this account were verified from Arni University and it was found that no account was opened by the Arni University in the Bank of India, Haridwar, and Arni University did not have employees in the names of Shivani Arora and M. Lal on its roll. After obtaining anticipatory bail, accused Shivani Arora associated in the investigation on 3.2.2019 and disclosed that she was running a coaching Center at Haridwar, where she met with Dr. Manish Lal Srivastava, the petitioner herein, who told her that he has purchased Arni University. He also offered a job and also gave an appointment and authority letter to her. She further disclosed that Manish Lal Srivastava had opened an account in Bank of India, Haridwar, in the name of A
