Shiv Kumar Negi vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 38/2012, dated 20.02.2012, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, under Sections 411, 467 IPC. It has been stated that petitioner has been arrested on 22.02.2012 in FIR No. 38/2012, dated 20th February, 2012, registered at Police Station, Dhalli and since then the petitioner is in custody.

The allegations against the petitioner are that a stolen car was found which was involved in another case. It has been alleged that petitioner during interrogation has accepted the ownership of the car. The petitioner has tampered with engine and chassis number of the car.

The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner has been arrested on the basis of suspicion. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

It has been submitted that petitioner had earlier filed bail application which has been dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (2), Shimla, on 27.02.2012. The learned Magistrate has erred in dismissing the bail application of the petitioner.

The status report has been filed. The case has been registered on the written complaint of S.I. Phool Singh. It has been stated that during the investigation of FIR No. 298/2011 dated 30th December, 2011, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, a Santro car was recovered on 30th December, 2011 at place near Bagain bearing number plate HR-99-HW-4813. The chassis number of the car was found erased. A chit on the dash-board was also found bearing mobile number 9129183867. The Santro car HR-99-HW-4813, chit, mobile and live round of 7.65 K.F. were recovered. In order to find out the real chassis number of Santro car, it was sent for examination to F.S.L. The mobile number was found to be of petitioner. As per F.S.L. report, original chassis number of the Santro car was found to be tampered. It has come in the investigation that Santro car was purchased by petitioner and used by him. The said car was found stolen from G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi and FIR No. 87/2011 dated 25.04.2011 u/s 379 IPC has already been registered at Police Station G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi. It has been submitted that petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 411, 467 IPC. On this, the case has been registered.

It has come in the investigation of FIR No. 298/2011 dated 30th December, 2011 that car HR-99-HW-4813 has been used in committing dacoity. The petitioner has disclosed that he has purchased the car from Nilokheri,Haryana for Rs. 80,000/-. The petitioner has stated that he has not obtained the documents of the car. He has stated that he has used the car. On 28.12.2011, he had given car to his friend Inder Dev alias Danu. On 30th December, 2011, FIR No. 298/2011 has been registered at Police Station, Dhalli, in which it has been found that said car was used in committing dacoity. One live cartridge, mobile have been recovered from the car. Inder Dev alias Danu has been arrested, but other accused have gone underground. In FIR No. 298/2011 till now it could not be established who tampered the chassis number of the car. It has come in the investigation that petitioner has purchased the said car from one Raja from Nilokheri. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has purchased the stolen car from one Raja from Nilokheri. The chassis number of the car has been tampered, but till now it has not been established who has tampered the chassis number of the car. Thus, main allegation against the petitioner is that he has purchased stolen car and used the same. The petitioner is in custody since 22.02.2012. It has not been stated in the status report that any recovery is to be made from the petitioner. One FIR has been registered at Delhi and another FIR No. 298 dated 30th December, 2011, at Dhalli, but nothing has been stated till now that petitioner is an accused in those cases. It appears the role of the petitioner in FIR No. 38/2012 dated 20th February, 2012, is limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C.

In view of above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (2), Shimla, with the conditions that petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and he shall maintain absolute peaceful and lawful conduct during the pendency of the case and he shall co-operate in the investigation of the case. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.