Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J
1. The matter is taken up through video conference.
2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the
event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 172 of 2020, dated 16.07.2020, under Sections 406, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, registered in Police
Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P.
3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of
the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by
sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail.
4. Police reports stand filed. The prosecution story, as it emanates from the records, is that on 16.07.2020 police received a written complaint from
Shri Ashutosh Vaidya, presently District President Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), Solan, (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as “the
complainantâ€). As per the complainant, in the year 2016 an agreement was entered into with one Dina Nath for sale of land for Solan District party
office of BJP and the total sale consideration was agreed to be Rs.90,00,000/- (rupees ninety lac). On 07.10.2016 the said agreement was entered into
by Shri Kapil Dev Sood (State Treasurer Himachal Pradesh BJP), on being authorized by Shri Amit Shah, the then National President BJP, on behalf
of BJP and on the same day Rs. 35,00,000/- (rupees thirty five lac) was paid to Shri Dina Nath. One of the covenants in the agreement was that
Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lac) was to be paid at the time of the registry, so on 29.03.2017 Rs. 50,000,000/- was transferred, through RTGS, in the
account of Shri Dina Nath. As per the complainant, in the said deal Manish Kumar (petitioner herein) acted as middle man. Thereafter, BJP applied
under Section 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, for registry of the said land, which permission was awaited. The complainant time
and again asked the petitioner to visit the land, but the petitioner turned topsy-turvy, so the complainant suspected some foul play. On being inquired, it
was unearthed that Dina Nath has further sold the said land to Smt. Parul Sandal for Rs.26,00,000/- (rupees twenty six lac). Thereafter, the
complainant, through the petitioner, contacted Dina Nath, but he did not reply satisfactorily. The complainant has further alleged in his complaint that
Dina Nath cheated BJP and the petitioner was instrumental in the said crime, as he had all the information and despite that he withheld the information
and hoodwinked BJP. The complainant has further alleged that there is possibility of involvement of other accomplices. Upon the complaint, so made
by the complainant, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. Police procured the revenue records and bank records of Dina Nath. On
16.07.2020 co-accused Dina Nath absconded from his home and he left a suicide note, however, on 19.07.2020 he was arrested. As per the police, it
has come in the investigation that some more persons are also involved in the felony and the petitioner’s role in the whole land deal was of middle
man. The petitioner, on being asked by the complainant, deliberately hoodwinked him. The petitioner, when asked by the police to join the investigation,
absconded and purposely switched off his mobile phone. The investigation is in initial stage and the petitioner is to be interrogated, so that other
persons, involved in the offence, be also brought under the clutches of law. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as
the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from
justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his bail application be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records,
including the police reports, carefully.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the
petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further
argued that the petitioner is only witness to the agreement, he has nothing to do with the alleged agreement, and he is, in no way, beneficiary of
execution/non-execution of the said agreement. The petitioner is booked by the police just to harass him. He has further argued that the petitioner is
ready and willing to join the investigation, so the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Additional
Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is one of the conspirators and he had an active role in the entire conspiracy, as he acted as a middle
man to get the agreement executed and in lieu of the said agreement, out of total sale consideration of Rs.90,00,000/-, Rs.85,00,000/- stood already
paid to co-accused Dina Nath. He has argued that the petitioner is the main plotter in the entire crime, as he always mis-guided the complainant,
resulting in fraud. The investigation in the case is in initial stages, inquiry is yet to be conducted, so in case, at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on
bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, police
may not be able to nab other conspirators/plotters. Ultimately, he has prayed for dismissal of the bail petition on the plinth of his arguments on different
points.
7. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, so he is neither in a
position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to
join the investigation, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police. Lastly, he has prayed that the petition may be allowed and the
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
8. At this stage, after considering the different facets of the case in hand, the fact that agreement was entered into between the complainant and co-
accused Dina Nath for sale of land and total consideration was agreed to be Rs. 90,00,000/-, out of which, as per the complainant, Rs. 85,00,000/-
already stood paid to co-accused Dina Nath, the petitioner’s role in said land deal, as per the prosecution case, is that of a middle man, the fact
that the said land stood again sold by co-accused Dina Nath and the petitioner deliberately withheld this fact from the complainant, so the petitioner
had hand in glove with the co-accused Dina Nath and he was also one of the plotters in the alleged crime. Also considering the fact that initially the
petitioner had absconded and he switched off his mobile phone to evade his arrest. This Court, at this stage, also finds that the investigation is in initial
stages and thorough interrogation from the petitioner is required, so as to nab other accused persons, if any, and also considering all other relevant
facts and without discussing the same elaborately, the fact that huge amount is involved, investigation has just only begun, so this Courts finds that the
present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour.
9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserved dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined to the adjudication and disposal of the present petition and the same
shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.
