AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, J.—Smt. Gulshan Bagga has filed Cr. MP(M) No. 587 of 2011 and Rahul Bagga has filed Cr. MP(M) No. 588 of 2011 for releasing them on bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 151/11, registered on 23.7.2011 at Police Station, West Shimla under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code. The applicants are mother and son. The Status reports have been filed in both the petitions, record perused. Both the applications are being disposed of by common judgment.
It has been stated in the applications that Rakesh Sharma has lodged a false complaint against applicants that model of car number 2001 was wrongly mentioned as 2004 in the RC at the time of purchasing but when he prepared new RC it was found that the manufacturing year of the vehicle is 2001. The applicants have been falsely implicated in FIR No. 151/11 dated 23.7.2011. It has been stated that applicants never made any false representation at the time of sale of the car nor they tampered the RC of the car which was purchased by the applicants in March, 2010.
3.The applicants are innocent. No recovery is to be made from them. They are ready to comply with the terms of the bail in case they are released on bail. The applicants have joined the investigation after the interim bail. A prayer has been made for releasing the applicants on bail.
The learned Addl,. Advocate General has opposed the bail applications on the basis of status reports. It has been submitted that case has been registered u/s 156 Code of Criminal Procedure The applicants have joined the investigation. The documents of vehicle No. HP-62-2001, such as RC, Insurance Policy, agreement to sell have been taken into possession. The dealing assistant of the office of S.T.A. Shimla informed that at the time of feeding data in the computer due to clerical mistake model number 2004 was printed in the R.C. of the aforesaid vehicle instead of model 2001. Smt. Gulshan Bagga had purchased this vehicle from Smt. Neelam Sharma on 8.1.2007 by treating model 2001 of the vehicle. Smt. Gulshan Bagga had sold the vehicle to complainant on 22.3.2010. It has been submitted that applicants have cheated the complainant and committed serious offence. In case the applicants are released on bail, they can terrorize the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation. The learned Addl. Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail applications.
I have considered the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the vehicle was sold on 22.3.2010 and the complaint was lodged on 23.7.2011. It has come in the status report that in the RC the model number was inadvertently written 2004 instead of 2001 of the vehicle due to printing error which cannot be attributed to the applicants. The applicants have joined the investigation. The documents of the vehicle have been taken into possession by the Investigating Agency. The apprehension in the status report that in case the applicants are released on bail they may terrorize the prosecution witnesses and hamper the evidence is without any foundation. There is no allegation that applicants are not co-operating in the investigation.
In these circumstances, the applicants have made out a case for releasing them on bail. Accordingly both the applications are allowed. In the event of arrest of applicants in FIR No. 151/11, registered on 23.7.2011 at Police Station, West Shimla under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code both the applicants are ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the condition that the applicants shall continue to join the investigation and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. In CMP(M) No. 587 of 2011 applicant is woman, she will be interrogated strictly in accordance with law.
The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail applications and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
For judgment, see judgment rendered in Cr. MP(M) No. 587 of 2011, titled Smt. Gulshan Bagga v. State of H.P.