Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16690 (HP)

Mudasir Ahmad v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-02-26

Sandeep Sharma

body2026
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Sequel to order dated 30.01.2026, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in case FIR No.0063 of 2022 dated 24.02.2022 registered at Police Station Nurpur District Kangra, H.P under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, respondent/State has filed status report. 2. Close scrutiny of the status report reveals that on 24.02.2022, complainant, namely Praveen Kumar lodged a complaint at Police Chowki Gangath, Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P alleging therein that co-accused namely Jyoti Kumar made him to deposit a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- in  bank account of bail petitioner with an assurance that he will get him job in MES. He further alleged that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was also deposited in bank account No.450010110015791/IFSC BKID0004500 on the assurance of Jyoti Kumar. He alleged that though on the assurance of co-accused Jyoti Kumar, he deposited Rs.11,90,000/- as detailed herein above, but neither he was provided any job nor money has been returned to him. In the afore background, FIR came to be lodged against petitioner as well as co-accused namely Jyoti Kumar and Lala Lohar, who is resident of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that co-accused Jyoti Kumar in connivance with present bail petitioner defrauded complainant Praveen Kumar. Though, there is no specific allegation of assurance, if any, given by petitioner herein to the complainant for providing job, but in nutshell case of the prosecution is that both Jyoti Kumar and present bail petitioner, who is resident of Jammu, in connivance with each other firstly hatched conspiracy of extracting money from innocent people like complainant and thereafter got the money transferred in the bank account of the petitioner. 4. Co-accused, namely Jyoti Kumar, who is said to be the kingpin, is absconding, whereas present bail petitioner, apprehending his arrest, approached   the Court  of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur District Kangra, H.P by way of anticipatory bail petition. Initially, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by learned Court below subject to his joining investigation. Though, petitioner joined investigation but yet learned Court below having taken note of status report filed by respondent/State passed order dated 20.11.2024, rejecting his bail petition. 5. Initially, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by learned Court below subject to his joining investigation. Though, petitioner joined investigation but yet learned Court below having taken note of status report filed by respondent/State passed order dated 20.11.2024, rejecting his bail petition. 5. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and there is no specific allegation of false assurance, if any, given by the petitioner to provide job to the complainant, petitioner has approached this Court in instant proceedings for grant of bail. 6. Mr. Manish Datwalia, learned Counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse contents of FIR states that at no point of time, petitioner herein, had any type of contact with the complainant. He submitted that as per contents of FIR, co-accused Jyoti Kumar had assured the complainant to provide job in MES and he had only asked complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- in two different accounts. He states that though a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- has been deposited in the account of petitioner but that was not for providing job, if any, to the complainant, rather, same was to be paid by Jyoti Kumar to the petitioner, from whom, he had purchased a bulk of dry fruits. Mr. Datwalia, states that to substantiate aforesaid plea of the petitioner, he has already made available copies of bills to the police but yet he is being harassed unnecessary. 7. While fairly admitting the factum of joining investigation by petitioner, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State states that investigation is still going on. He states that recovery of Rs.5,90,000/- deposited in the bank account of petitioner by the complainant is yet to be effected from the petitioner. He states that the kingpin Jyoti Kumar is absconding since 2022 and his whereabouts are not being disclosed by the petitioner, with whom, allegedly he had business connection. Mr.Chauhan states that investigating agency had been trying to trace present bail petitioner since the year 2024 but on one pretext or the other, he is avoiding investigation, and as such, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may also tamper with the prosecution evidence. 8. Mr.Chauhan states that investigating agency had been trying to trace present bail petitioner since the year 2024 but on one pretext or the other, he is avoiding investigation, and as such, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may also tamper with the prosecution evidence. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially FIR No.63 of 2022 dated 24.02.2022 this Court finds that there is no specific allegation, if any, against petitioner with regard to demand of money or assurance, if any, to provide employment. Complainant has specifically alleged that the person Jyoti, who is resident of Jammu, assured him to provide job in MES in lieu of Rs.11,90,000/-, out of which, Rs.5,90,000/- was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner and Rs.6,00,000/- in the bank account of co-accused Lala Lohar, who is resident of Uttar Pradesh. Interestingly, co-accused Jyoti Kumar, who is kingpin, is absconding and investigating agency has not been able to trace him for last four years, whereas, petitioner after having received intimation of police, approached the Competent Court of law for grant of bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra enlarged petitioner on anticipatory bail, pursuant to which, he joined investigation, but subsequently, on the basis of the status report filed by the respondent/State, interim bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled. It is none of the case of the respondent/State that petitioner has not joined the investigation, rather, it has specifically come in the status report that pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P, petitioner has joined investigation but since he has not been able to deposit Rs.5,90,000/-, prayer made on his behalf is being opposed. 9. As per case of the petitioner, all the bills pertain to sale and purchase inter se bail petitioner and co-accused Jyoti along with call details already stand supplied to investigating agency. Factum with regard to deposit of Rs.5,90,000/- in his bank account has not been denied by the petitioner but such amount is stated to have been transferred on account of purchases of dry fruits made by Jyoti Kumar from the petitioner. Call detail reports placed on record further suggest that bail petitioner has no contact as of today with co-accused Jyoti, who is absconding. Call detail reports placed on record further suggest that bail petitioner has no contact as of today with co-accused Jyoti, who is absconding. Perusal of FIR nowhere suggests involvement, if any, of petitioner and at no point of time, money was ever demanded by petitioner coupled with the fact that he has made available bills on record to prove sale and purchase inter se him and co-accused Jyoti, therefore, there appears no justification to deny bail to the petitioner on the ground that recovery yet to be effected. Prosecution is yet to establish on record that sum of Rs.5,90,000/- deposited in the bank account of the petitioner was for providing employment by co-accused Jyoti. Similarly, prosecution is yet to establish connivance if any of petitioner with co-accused Jyoti. Since, petitioner is not aware about the whereabouts of co-accused Jyoti and he is not in his contact since the year 2022, petitioner herein cannot be harassed by investigating agency. 10. Though, the case at hand is to be decided by learned Court below in totality of evidence collected on record of prosecution, but keeping in view of the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during the trial, especially when he has already joined investigation pursuant to direction passed by this Court. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of cases have held that one is deem to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt if any of the petitioner is to to be established on record by the investigating agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, his freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or may again indulge in such activities, can be best met by putting bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 14. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 15. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 16. 15. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 30.01.2026 passed by this Court is made absolute subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5.00 Lakh with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 17. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 18. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 19. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.