Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 846 (HP)

MOHINDER SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-10-08

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral)-This order shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 872 of 2009 Cr.MP(M) No. 873 of 2009, Cr.MP(M) No. 874 of 2009, Cr.MP(M) No. 875 of 2009, Cr.MP(M) No. 876 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No. 877 of 2009 filed by Mohinder Singh, Jagdish, Tulsi Ram, Ramesh, Madan Verma and Inder Singh, respectively under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting bail in FIR No. 164/2009 dated 29.9.2009 registered at Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, under Sections 147, 149, 323 and 506 (II) IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 872 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case in pursuance of complaint lodged by one Kapil Sharma who was instructed to carry vegetables in the shop of a relative of one of the petitioners in Subzi Mandi, Theog. Kapil Sharma in order to earn profit for himself tried to dispose of the same to some other agent. This resulted in confrontation and the petitioners asked money from Kapil Sharma. In these circumstances, Kapil Sharma lodged false complaint. The petitioners are innocent. They have not committed any offence. They are ready to join the investigation. In pursuance of the interim order dated 5.10.2009 the petitioners have already joined the investigation. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 4. The bail applications have been opposed by Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the complaint of Kapil Sharma. According to him on the asking of Mohinder Singh, Commission Agent, he carried vegetables from Theog to Moga for Rs. 4600/-, the vehicle broke down at Samrana. Mohinder Singh, Commission Agent requested to engage another vehicle and carry the vegetables to Moga or Jagraon and accordingly vegetables were taken to Moga. But Mohinder Singh asked the driver of the vehicle to carry the vegetables to Maler Kotla and the driver delivered the vegetables at Maler Kotla as directed by Mohinder Singh. The Commission Agent at Maler Kotla refused to pay the freight charges. It has been alleged that complainant had paid from his own pocket Rs. 2200/and brought back his vehicle after repairing said vehicle on 28.9.2009. On 29.9.2009 he demanded the freight charges from Mohinder Singh. The Commission Agent at Maler Kotla refused to pay the freight charges. It has been alleged that complainant had paid from his own pocket Rs. 2200/and brought back his vehicle after repairing said vehicle on 28.9.2009. On 29.9.2009 he demanded the freight charges from Mohinder Singh. The accused started beating him with kick and fist blows and he sustained several injuries on his person. On this, the case was registered. It has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that no recovery is to be made and the investigation in the case is almost complete. 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The dispute between the parties had allegedly arisen for carrying vegetables and payment of freight charges. The investigation in the case is almost complete and no recovery is to be made. The petitioners have already joined the investigation. It is not the case of the Investigating Agency that the petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, all the bail applications are allowed. All the petitioners in the event of their arrest in FIR No. 164/2009 dated 29.9.2009 registered at Police Station, Theog, District Shimla , under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506(II) IPC, are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the conditions that the petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.