IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. 1.Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1006 2011 2.Cr.MP(M) No. 1008 of 2011. Date of decision: 12.12.2011. _______________________________________________________ 1..Cr.MP(M) No.1006 of 2011 1. Ranjit Sandal 2. Kuldeep Kumar Both sons of late Sh. Parkash Chand, resident of village and PO Garli, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. …..Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No.1008 of 2011 Anita wife of Kuldeep Kumar, R/o village and P.O. Garli, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. ( in both the petitions) For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. (in both the petitions) Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.1006 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No.1008, both having arisen out of FIR No.216 of 2011 dated 4.12.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B, IPC, registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi. Both the petitions Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting bail to the petitioners. 2. Cr.MP(M) No.1006 of 2011 has been filed by Ranjit Sandal and Kuldeep Kumar brothers and Cr.MP(M) No.1008 of 2011 has been filed by Anita wife of Kuldeep Kumar. It has been stated in the bail applications that one Sanjiv Arri resident of Ferozpur (Punjab) assured unemployed youths for employment in Assam Rifles. In pursuance of assurance given by Sanjiv Arri some youths of District Kangra were duped by him and he collected money from different people. It has been stated that Ranjit Sandal was also induced by Sanjiv Arri and he also paid ` 1,50,000/-. It has been stated that petitioner Anita is a social worker, Ranjit got registered an FIR in Police Station, Dehra against Sanjiv Arri. 3. It has been stated that due to political reasons and in order to settle the scores with the petitioners, an FIR No.216 has been registered at Police Station, Jawalmukhi on 4.12.2011. It has been stated that petitioners are innocent. They have committed no offence. Petitioner Kuldeep Kumar is having high blood pressure and had undergone Angiography on 14.11.2011. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioners have prayed bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No.1006 of 2011. It has been stated that on 4.12.2011 Pankaj Kumar submitted a written application to Incharge Police Station, Jawalamukhi stating that Kuldeep Kumar assured him and his brother Ajay Kumar for …3… employment in Assam Rifles. In March, 2011 he and his brother paid ` 3 lacs each to Kuldeep Kumar in presence of Anita, Ranjit Sandal and his wife. Some other persons were also present at that time. They were assured that they would be given employment in Health Department in Assam Rifles. They have retained their original 10+2 certificates. They were told on telephone that they were to appear for medical at Guwahati and their railway reservation had also been done from Delhi to Guwahati on payment of ` 10,000/- each. There were other 20-25 boys in the bogies who were asked to report at Guwahati for medical examination. All of them were taken in some hotel in Guwahati. They were medically examined. They were told that they would receive call letters next month. They gave them call letters and told them that they should join only when they were asked to join by them, but till date they have not been allowed to join. They suspected that all of them have duped the youths by giving forged call letters. It has been stated that said persons have duped several persons in the area. On this, case has been registered. 5. It has come in the status report that 28 boys had given different amounts to petitioners Ranjit Sandal, Kuldeep Kumar and Anita. Manoj Kumar has stated that he had paid ` 1,50,000/- to Ranjit Sandal and Anita. In all they have collected ` 54,52,000/- in cash from young boys alongwith their 10 and 10+2 original certificates. They had even issued forged posting orders to some boys in Health Department in Assam Rifles. It has been stated that petitioners are not disclosing where they got prepared the appointment letters and who signed those letters. The original …4… certificates of the boys are to be recovered. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail applications. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police file. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were duped by Sanjiv Arri and a case has been got registered by Ranjit Sandal petitioner against Sanjiv Arri who took ` 1,50,000/- from petitioner Ranjit Sandal for giving appointment in Assam Rifles. It has been submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case due to political reasons. It has also been submitted that petitioner Anita is a woman and is entitled to special treatment for the purpose of bail. 7. The allegations against the petitioners are serious, till now as per Investigating Agency the petitioners have collected ` 54,52,000/- from the unemployed youths for giving appointments in Assam Rifles. They have also issued fictitious appointment letters to some of them. The petitioners have also taken original certificates of the youths. The recoveries of such certificates are to be made from the petitioners so also it is to be enquired who prepared and signed the forged appointment letters of some of the youths. The case has been registered against all the petitioners for various offences including under Section 120 B IPC. 8. The allegation against petitioner Anita is that she is equally involved in the case, till now atleast one youth Manoj has stated that he has paid ` 1,50,000/- to petitioner Ranjit and Anita. The investigation is at initial stage. In order to find out truth, the petitioner Anita is not entitled to special treatment at this stage. Thus …5… taking into consideration serious allegations against the petitioners, the petitioners are not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Both the bail applications are dismissed. 9. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail applications and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. December 12, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge. …6… IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1008 of 2011. Date of decision: 12.12.2011. Anita wife of Kuldeep Kumar, R/o village and P.O. Garli, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?2 For the petitioner : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate with Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) For order, see order rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.1006 of 2011, titled as Ranjit Sandal and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. December 12, 2011 (sks) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?