IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Ranjan Mahajan - Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.2870 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, and 34 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Bail application - Applicant apprehending arrest in FIR for fraud allegations - Court grants interim protection, emphasizing presumption of innocence and the need for custodial interrogation to be justified - Conditions imposed for bail include cooperation with investigation and non-inducement of witnesses. (Paras 1-23)
(B) Bail - Pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law - Bail cannot be denied merely as a punitive measure. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, facing allegations of fraud involving investment schemes, sought bail fearing arrest under multiple FIRs. The complainants, local villagers, alleged misappropriation of their funds by the applicant and others.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the interim bail order, allowing the applicant to remain free pending trial, subject to conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the justification for custodial interrogation and the presumption of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the state failed to justify the need for custodial interrogation, and the applicant's presumption of innocence must be upheld.
Result: Interim bail granted, conditions imposed.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.42/2024 dated 02.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P., applicant-Ranjan Mahajan 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 applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O/police of Police Station Tissa, to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case/FIR.
3. The said relief has been sought on the ground that he is innocent person and apprehending his arrest, in the above-noted case.
4. According to the applicant, the allegations, as levelled in the FIR in the question, against him, are baseless and concocted.
5. It is the case of the applicant that one FIR, regarding the same transaction, has also been registered with Police Station Kihar, vide FIR No.63 of 2023, in which, all the Directors of the Company, including the applicant, have been named as accused and investigation, in the said case, is still going on.
6. On the basis of above facts, certain undertakings have been given, on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., in this case.
7. When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report on 19.12.2024, disclosing therein, that on02.05.2024, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tissa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JMFC’) has passed the order, under Section 156(3) of CrPC, upon which, the FIR in question has been registered. The contents of the said complaint, as mentioned, are reproduced, as under:-
“(1). That the Complainants are the permanent resident of Tehsil Churah District Chamba (H.P.) That in the year 2021 and 2022 Mr Ranjan Mahajan Moh, Hardaspura District Chamba H.P accused no.1 convinced the complainants that he is director of Arth Kosh Nidhi AND Arthalya Sanchay Nidhi Itd. Branch Office Main Bazaar Bhanjraru Tehsil Churah District Chamba H.P.
(2). That Mr. Ranjan Mahajan invite the complaints to invest their money in scheme as "Arthalya Sancay and Arth Kosh and also stated that this Nidhi will give you benefits without your efforts you all will just deposit minimum, maximum and unlimited and after completion the one year this Nidhi will give you 8% interest of yours principal amount.
(3). That all the rustic and simple villagers (complainants) invest their money from their saving and also took loans from the Banks and deposit the same through in Arth Kosh AND Arthalay Sanchay.
(4). That all the above mention complaint invested their money on the positive hope that after the one year the Nidhi will give interest amount of money and Nidhi also will gave Education Loan facility. The poor and simple complainants invest their money for future perspective therefore villagers took loans from Banks but all in vain.
(5). That after the completion of time bond period all the complainants called to Mr. Ranjan Mahajan to receive back the deposit money along with maturity but shockingly accused denied to gave their money to them.
(6). That it is very important to submit here that after denial of this all the complainant told the all of the accused to file complaint against him but then the accused no.1 assured them that he will gave entire amount within one week.
(7). That thereafter complainants again approached Mr. Ranjan Mahajan (accused no.1) and complainants are in bigger shock when he refused to give the amount which was being invested by all the complainants to get the benefits & moreover to this now the Banks issued the notice to the complainants who get loan from the Bank.
(8). That the complainant reported the matter to police at police Station Tissa on dated 12-11-2023 but the police failed to take any
AI
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the state to justify custodial interrogation in bail applications.
Insufficient evidence justifies granting bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, despite allegations of fraud.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the applicant to the alleged financial misconduct.
The court determines insufficient evidence for bail restrictions, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Bail is granted when evidence is insufficient to prove intent to deceive and continued detention is unnecessary.
A lack of sufficient evidence may warrant bail, even with serious allegations.
Regular bail can be granted if prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate allegations of intentional cheating.
The court permits bail when there is insufficient evidence to support continued detention of the accused, emphasizing the importance of case specifics in bail decisions.
Court grants bail due to insufficient evidence for continued detention of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.