IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 845 and 846 of 2011. Date of decision: 1.11.2011. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No.845 of 2011. Parveen Kumar …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 846 of 2011. Mohit Sharma …..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. Manish Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This judgement shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) No.845 and 846 of 2011, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., as both the petitions have arisen out of FIR No. 170 dated 24.6.2011, registered at Police Station Palampur, under sections 419, 420, 468, 120-B IPC. 2. It has been stated in the applications that as per the case of investigating agency one Subhash Chand impersonated himself as Ishwar Chand and entered into an agreement with Dr. Rajiv Bedi in the year 2008. The petitioners are not connected with the case in any manner. The petitioners are innocent, they have Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… committed no offence nor hatched any conspiracy. The petitioners earlier filed bail applications, under Section 437 Cr.P.C., which were rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dharmshala. Thereafter, the petitioners filed bail applications, under section 439 Cr.P.C., which have been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala on 16.9.2011. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. 3. The bail applications have been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. It has been stated that case has been registered on the written complaint of Dr. Rajiv Bedi. In the status report, it has been stated that sale agreement dated 30.7.2008 has been taken into possession. Dr. Rajiv Bedi is working as Head of Medical Oncology Department, Fortis Hospital, Mohalli. Pooja Sharma and Mohit Sharma came in contact with the complainant in connection with the treatment of mother of Pooja Sharma. In her meeting with the complainant, Pooja Sharma used to describe herself as an IAS Officer posted in the Government Secretariat. 4. Pooja Sharma used to describe Mohit Sharma as her brother, but in fact he is not her real brother. Pooja Sharma in connivance with Mohit Sharma and Parveen impressed upon the complainant to open Nursing Institution at Palampur. They in connivance with Subhash Chand, Rulia Ram and Rakesh Kumar prepared a plan to purchase land at Palampur. Some land was shown to the complainant. Ishwar Chand was a co-sharer in the land. Subhash Chand was presented before the complainant as Ishwar …3… Chand and Rakesh Kumar was presented as Subhash Chand and got prepared a false agreement. There was no land in the name of Subhash Chand. Pooja Sharma impressed upon the complainant that permission under section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is required and even took `45,00,000/- (forty five lacs) on different occasions from the complainant. Mohit Sharma and Parveen Kumar were arrested on 5.9.2011. Pooja Sharma has absconded. Several recoveries are to be made from the petitioners. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail applications. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that co-accused Rakesh Kumar, Subhash Chand and Rulia Ram have been granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palampur on 23.8.2011. On the basis of parity, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners also, who are in custody since 5.9.2011. 6. The copy of common order dated 12.10.2011 passed by leaned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in the bail applications of the petitioners has been placed on record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the context of order dated 23.8.2011 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palampur has observed that learned Magistrate had not considered the enormity of amount involved and seriousness of offence, which the accused persons have allegedly committed and has further observed that accused should not have been admitted on bail. He took suo motu notice and issued show cause to Subhash Chand, Rulia Ram and …4… Rakesh Kumar why the bail granted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on 23.8.2011 be not cancelled. 7. The allegations against the petitioners are very serious. As per investigating agency, the petitioners in connivance with Pooja Sharma have duped the complainant an amount of `45,00,000/-. Pooja Sharma impersonated herself as an IAS Officer in H.P. Government Secretariat. The petitioners during their meeting with the complainant alongwith Pooja Sharma never contradicted the impersonation of Pooja Sharma, rather they also acted in such manner so as to impress upon the complainant that whatever Pooja Sharma had disclosed was correct. It has been stated on behalf of the investigating agency that several recoveries are to be made from the petitioners. Pooja Sharma the brain behind the conspiracy has gone underground and she is to be arrested. The investigation is mid way. Thus keeping in view the seriousness of the case and allegations against the petitioners, no case has been made out for grant of bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed. 8. Any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 1, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.