IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Vivek - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2952 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2025
(A) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 482 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail apprehending arrest in a case of alleged financial misconduct involving withdrawal from a joint bank account - The applicant claimed false implication and provided undertakings for cooperation with the investigation - The court noted the applicant's cooperation and the absence of grounds for custodial interrogation - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 15)
(B) Pre-trial rights - The court emphasized that pre-trial punishment is prohibited and the applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty - The court refrained from discussing the merits of the case to avoid prejudice. (Paras 12, 16)
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. Applicant Vivek, apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No. 87 of 2024, dated 14.10.2024, registered under Sections 318 (4), 316 (5) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) with Police Station, Tahliwal, District Una, H.P . has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’).
2. The applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the Investigating Officer/Police, to release him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the above-mentioned case.
3. According to the applicant, he has been falsely implicated in the present case, as the case has been registered against him, on the basis of concocted facts. According to him, he is innocent person and has nothing to do with the case.
4. Apart from this, the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, directions are issued to the Police/I.O., under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S.
5. The applicant has tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, H.P., which has been dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2024.
6. On all these submissions, Ms. Narvada Kashyap, Advocate has prayed that the bail application may kindly be allowed.
7. When put to notice, the Police has filed status report on 27.12.2024, disclosing therein that on 14.10.2024, complainant Suman moved a complaint, before the Police of Police Station, Tahliwal to the effect that Vivek (applicant) working in HDFC Bank, Tahliwal has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- from her Cash Credit Limit Account No. 50200088641535.
7.1 According to the complainant, she and her husband are having joint account with HDFC Bank, Tahliwal. The Cash Credit Limit of the same is Rs. 5,50,000/-. The account is stated to have been opened in the year 2023. For opening the said Cash Credit Limit, applicant Vivek had approached them and after winning their confidence, the said account was got opened.
7.2 Thereafter, complainant and her husband are stated to have received the debit card. She has further alleged that from 25.11.2023, applicant Vivek used to withdraw the amount from their account, through ATM and other modes.
7.3 On 4.11.2024, the complainant came to know about this fact and contacted the Bank Manager Gaurav, and disclosed that from her account a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was withdrawn by accused Vivek through ATM and other modes. Thereafter, she contacted Vivek and his parents regarding this fact, upon which, parents of the applicant assured her to return the said amount. However, on 14.10.2024, parents of applicant Vivek refused to repay the said amount.
7.4 On the basis of above facts, complainant has prayed that action be taken against Manager Gaurav and applicant Vivek.
7.5 On the basis of above facts, the FIR was registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.
7.6 During investigation, requisite documents, qua opening of the bank account, were obtained. During investigation, it was also found that facility of SMS alert was not provided to the registered mobile number of the complainant.
7.7 On the basis of above facts, interim protection was granted to the applicant with a direction to the applicant to join investigation.
7.8 In the status report, filed on 6.1.2025, it has been mentioned that investigation, in the present case, is going on and record, with regard to the use of ATM/debit card by the applicant, on different petrol pumps, is required to be taken into possession. In the status report, it has also been mentioned that request for providing transaction history has also been made to the Bank.
7.9. In the status report, filed on 9.1.2025, it has been mentioned that though the applicant had joined the investigation, but he is not cooperating with the investigation, nor getting the ATM card recovered. In the status report, filed on 16.1.2025, similar stand has been taken by the Police.
7.10. Today
AI
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.
Bail cannot be denied as a form of punishment before trial; cooperation with the investigation is essential.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The presumption of innocence applies until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail should not be denied if custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure, and the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty.
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and bail should not be denied as a form of punishment before trial conclusion.
The court ruled that without substantial evidence from the complainant, no case for custodial interrogation was established, allowing interim bail.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the state to justify custodial interrogation in bail applications.
The presumption of innocence allows for interim bail confirmation when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and no prior criminal record exists.
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.