Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1075 (HP)

ASHUTOSH LATH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-11-18

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 167 dated 6.11.2009 registered at Police Station, Amb, under Sections 346, 365, 420,467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that Ajay Kumar son of complainant Parkasho Devi had gone to Middle East in January, 2008 and had been working with some shipping Company there. Ajay Kumar was in contact with Smt. Parkasho Devi till June, 2008. On 22.6.2008 newspaper Punjab Kesari published news item that a ship had caught fire in Oman and two Himachali boys were missing. Smt. Parkasho Devi and her elder son Vijay Kumar at one stage disclosed that Ajay Kumar had gone to Dubai on 6.1.2008 through one Prabhat. 4. It has been alleged that Smt. Parkash Devi in June 2008 reported to police at Amb and implicated the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded his innocence. Smt. Parkasho Devi filed writ petition in the High court seeking directions to the police to investigate the matter. It has been submitted that petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and also ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 5. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate also appeared on behalf of Smt. Parkasho Devi complainant and assisted the learned Addl. Advocate General. On instructions received from Madan Lal, DSP present in the Court, the learned Addl. Advocate General has stated that till now no evidence has come during investigation that Ajay Kumar was sent abroad by the petitioner. It has been stated in the status report that Ajay Kumar had gone to Amritsar Airport on 1.1.2008 and on next day he reached Saharjah Airport safely. Dayal Singh and Gurveer Singh witnesses have stated that all of them had worked on one ship and at the time of accident they were with Ajay Kumar on the ship. On 3.6.2008 the ship all of a sudden caught fire and out of 13 persons in all 11 persons were saved but Chief Engineer and Ajay Kumar could not be traced. In the status report, It has been stated that ship got fire all of a sudden. On 3.6.2008 the ship all of a sudden caught fire and out of 13 persons in all 11 persons were saved but Chief Engineer and Ajay Kumar could not be traced. In the status report, It has been stated that ship got fire all of a sudden. It has also been stated that complainant has imputed allegations against the petitioner that her son was sent by petitioner illegally by taking money from him. 6. Ajay Kumar had gone to foreign country on 1/2.1.2008. The petitioner has joined the investigation. It is not the case of the Investigating Agency that petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. The safe landing of Ajay Kumar at Saharjah Airport has come on record. It is the case of the Investigating Agency that Ajay Kumar is missing from the day when the ship on which he was working all of a sudden caught fire. The mishap took place in some foreign country. Insofar investigation of the case in India is concerned, the police is on job. The Investigating Agency has not placed anything on record so as to prima facie point out accusing finger towards petitioner at this stage. 7. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, application is allowed. The petitioner in the event of arrest is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 167 dated 6.11.2009 registered at Police Station, Amb, under Sections 346, 365, 420,467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall fully co-operate in the investigation. 8. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.