Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Gurdeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No.256 of 2025
Decided on : 04-03-2025
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 318(4) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail apprehending arrest in a case of alleged fraud involving non-delivery of machinery after receiving payment - Court found no substantial evidence for custodial interrogation as the complainant failed to produce requisite documents. (Paras 1, 16, 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - The court emphasized that the absence of necessary documentation from the complainant does not establish a case for custodial interrogation, thus granting interim protection to the applicant. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of fraudulently receiving payments for machinery that was never delivered, with the complainant alleging a total payment of Rs.17,00,000/- without any contractual documentation. (Paras 8.1, 8.4)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the lack of evidence from the complainant did not warrant custodial interrogation of the applicant, thus making the interim bail order absolute. (Paras 16, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence for arrest and the validity of the allegations made by the complainant. (Paras 16, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without the production of necessary documents by the complainant, no case for custodial interrogation was established, reinforcing the principle that allegations must be substantiated by evidence. (Paras 16, 17)
Result: Interim bail granted, subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant-Gurdeep Singh, apprehending his arrest, in FIR No.7/2025, dated 07.02.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’), with Police Station, Sayri, District Solan, H.P., has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’).
2. By way of the present application, the indulgence of this Court has been sought to direct the I.O./police of Police Station, Sayari, to release the applicant on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above noted case.
3. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated in this case, as he has nothing to do with the alleged offence, for which, he has been named, as accused.
4. The applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the Police/Investigating Officer, under Section 482 of the BNSS.
5. According to the applicant, one case, bearing FIR No.252/2021, under Sections 379, 120-B of the IPC, read with Section 21 of the Mines and Mineral Act, was registered against him, with Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P.
6. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
7. On 14.02.2025, while granting the interim protection to the applicant, he was directed to join the investigation.
8. On 25.02.2025, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein that complainant Harish Verma made a complaint to the police mentioning therein that he is resident of the address, as mentioned, in the complaint. He has obtained land, on lease, in village Haripur, Tehsil Kandaghat, in order to start a water plant.
8.1. According to the complainant, he has started the work for the said water plant. He has contacted Gurdeep Singh (applicant), to purchase the machinery at the reasonable rate. He has apprised the complainant to arrange a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the said machinery.
8.2. Thereafter, on 14.08.2024, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on 19.08.2024, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, andon 27.08.2024, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, by transferring the amount to the account of the applicant. On 17.08.2024, the applicant has paid a sum Rs.5,00,000/-, in cash, near McDonald, Zirakpur, and on 28.08.2024, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, in cash, at Hotel Mihal Pahad Ganj, Delhi.
8.3. Thereafter, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, at the instance of Gurdeep Singh (applicant), on 19.08.2024, in the bank account of Daljeet Singh and Rs.1,00,000/-, in the bank account of Ajay Kumar. As such, he has paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-.
8.4. According to the applicant, despite receiving the said amount, neither the applicant has provided the machinery nor returned the money, as such, he has alleged that action be taken against him.
9. On the basis of the above facts, the FIR in question, has been registered and the criminal machinery swung into motion.
10. Thereafter, during investigation, requisite correspondence was made to obtain the details of bank account of Gurdeep Singh (applicant) and Daljeet Singh.
11. During investigation, on 15.02.2025, complainant Harish Verma, made a supplementary statement by providing the requisite documents with regard to installation of water plant. He has also provided a copy of the lease deed to the police.
12. As per the status report, on 15.02.2025, in pursuance of the interim protection granted to the applicant, he appeared before the police and disclosed that complainant Harish Kumar, met him in the month of June 2024 at Panchkula. He apprised the applicant that his (complainant’s) nephew is lodged in Jail at Gujarat, in connection with some accident, for the last one year. He has requested him to get his nephew released on bail, upon which, the applicant took Harish Kumar (complainant) to Delhi to a lawyer, namely Pradeep Rai. At that time, one Trilokinath Baba was also with him. The lawyer has demanded
AI
The court ruled that without substantial evidence from the complainant, no case for custodial interrogation was established, allowing interim bail.
The court granted bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of pre-trial punishment, while noting the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.
Failure to substantiate fraud allegations justifies bail when complainant lacks supporting evidence and does not participate in the investigation.
The presumption of innocence applies until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law.
The presumption of innocence allows for interim bail confirmation when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and no prior criminal record exists.
Concealment of prior criminal cases disqualifies an applicant from bail under the NDPS Act, despite the completion of the investigation.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited as punishment, allowing bail based on the slow pace of the trial and change in circumstances while ensuring societal protection through str....
The presumption of innocence and completion of investigation justified granting bail, emphasizing that pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Bail cannot be denied as punishment; presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, necessitating fair consideration for bail applications.
The court emphasized that pre-trial detention is prohibited as a form of punishment, affirming the presumption of innocence and allowing bail based on the applicant's age and lack of criminal history....
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
