IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos. 701, 699 and 700 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.9.2011 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 701 of 2011 Dheeraj Jaura …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 699 of 2011 Sukrant Jaura ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 700 of 2011 Deepak Jaura ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 701 of 2011, Cr.MP(M) No. 699 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No. 700 of 2011 all having arisen out of FIR No. 170 of 2011 dated 17.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, under Sections 341, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 323, 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No.701 of 2011 and the same has been perused. Cr.MP(M) No. 701 of 2011: 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is owner of Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. HP-39B-0220. The petitioner entered into a sale agreement with Chanjeet Singh for Rs.8,15,000/- after adjusting security amount of ` 1,75,000/- lying with the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dharamshala in favour of the complainant. A sum of ` 75,000/- was to be paid by the complainant Chanjeet Singh to the petitioner as per sale agreement dated 25.6.2011 which was paid by way of two post dated cheques amounting to ` 40,000/- and ` 35,000/- dated 12.7.2011. 3. The possession of the vehicle was handed over to the complainant at the time of execution of the agreement. The cheques were dishonoured on 10.8.2011 and 17.8.2011.The complainant miserably failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. He did not pay even a single penny till date in lieu of sale agreement. The complaint was lodged with the Police Station, Dharamshala on 13.8.2011 after dishonour of first cheque. The police refused to intervene in the matter being non-cognizable and dispute of civil nature. 4. On 17.8.2011 the second cheque was bounced. The petitioner apprised the complainant and told him about the breach of trust committed by him and requested him to return the vehicle as he failed to pay the agreed amount in time. The complainant handed over the peaceful possession of the Scorpio vehicle. However, in the evening the petitioner came to know about the registration of the case involving petitioner, his elder brother Deepak Jaura and cousin Sukrant Jaura on the basis of false complaint lodged by Chanjeet Singh. 5. The petitioner, his brother and cousin filed bail applications which were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Dharamshala on 2.9.2011. FIR has been lodged after due deliberations. The petitioner has been framed in the case at the instance of the complainant with the help of police so that the complainant can retain the illegal custody of the vehicle by abusing the process of law. 6. The petitioner has joined the investigation. The petitioner belongs to reputed family. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The story of the prosecution is highly improbable. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation. The possession of the vehicle in question with documents has already been taken by the police during investigation. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The petitioner is innocent and he is apprehending his arrest in view of the registration of the case. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. Cr.MP(M) No. 699 of 2011: 7. The petitioner is cousin of petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 701 of 2011. He has also prayed for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 170 of 2011 dated 17.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, under Sections 341, 323, 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC on almost on similar grounds as prayed by petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 701 of 2011. Cr.MP(M) No. 700 of 2011: 8. The petitioner is brother of petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 701 of 2011. He has also prayed for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 170 of 2011 dated 17.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, under Sections 341, 323, 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC on similar grounds as prayed by petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 701 of 2011. 9. The bail applications have been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report in which it has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of written complaint dated 17.8.2011 of Chanjeet Singh alleging therein that on 17.8.2011 at about 1.15 P.M. when the complainant was going towards Pathankot in vehicle bearing registration No. HP-39B- 0220 alongwith his father and a friend, all of a sudden many vehicles blocked the road and did not allow the complainant to proceed. 10. Deepak Jaura, Dheeraj Jaura, Sukrant Jaura and others gathered on the spot, they pounced upon the complainant used filthy language and pushed the complainant outside the car. They gave beatings with fist blows and were having hockeys also. In the scuffle, the complainant has received injury on his right hand. They threatened to kill the complainant. In the scuffle, the complainant has lost gold chain and a sum of `1,70,000/- from the car including some blank cheques, one of which was signed by the complainant. The complainant had kept the money for purchasing tiles. The complainant is a contractor. It has been alleged that the gold chain and `1,70,000/- have been taken away by said persons as well as vehicle bearing registration No. HP-39B-0220. 11. The vehicle bearing No.HP-39B-0220 was previously owned by Dheeraj Jaura which was purchased by the complainant for a sum of ` 8,40,000/-. Out of this amount, a sum of ` 75,000/- was paid on 25.6.2011 when the possession of the vehicle was given to the complainant. The balance money was to be deposited with the bank. In the vehicle a stereo worth `25,000/- was got installed and further a sum of `55,000/- was spent on the upkeep of the vehicle. On this, the case has been registered. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the police file. The complainant has alleged that many persons including petitioners blocked their road for committing the offence. G.D.entry No. 42(A) dated 17.8.2011 recorded at 3.20 P.M. indicates that Dheeraj Jaura reported the matter at Police Station, Dharamshala by way of written application that Scorpio vehicle No. HP-39B-0220 was sold to Chanjeet Singh as per agreement and, therefore, Dheeraj Jaura has taken back the vehicle from Chanjeet Singh and police was informed accordingly. Dheeraj Jaura had earlier given an application dated 13.8.2011. 13. FIR No. 170 was registered on 17.8.2011 at 4.40 P.M. It has been stated in the FIR that the complainant was stopped at about 1.15 P.M. on 17.8.2011 and was confined for more than two hours. In the FIR, it has not been specifically stated that who allegedly took `1,70,000/- and gold chain. It has been stated by the petitioners that Scorpio vehicle No.HP-39B-0220 has been taken into possession by the police alongwith documents. This has not been contradicted in the status report. The investigating agency in the status report has suspected the story of keeping `1,70,000/- in the vehicle as well as gold chain. 14. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners have been framed by the complainant and the FIR has been lodged by the complainant in order to harass the petitioners. In the status report, it has not been stated that petitioners have not joined the investigation or they are not co-operating in the investigation. They can be interrogated while on bail regarding `1,70,000/- and gold chain. Only for this purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary more particularly when the complainant in the FIR has not specifically stated who has taken away `1,70,000/- and the gold chain. According to the complainant, there were several persons on the spot at the time of alleged commission of offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. 15. . Accordingly, all bail applications being Cr.MP(M) Nos. 701, 699 and 700 of 2011 are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 170 of 2011 dated 17.8.2011 registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, under Sections 341, 323, 382, 504, 506, 34 IPC, in the event of their arrest, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and they shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorise or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 16. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti September 13, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.