Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1033 (HP)

Santhoka Ram v. State Of H. P.

2010-08-11

SURINDER SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Vide order dated March 24, 2009 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 157 of 2009, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court in FIR No. 219 of 2008, registered on 15.9.2008, under Sections 302, 364, 396, 201 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station, Haroli, District Una allegedly hatching conspiracy of causing murder of Dilbag Singh (deceased) during the intervening night of 11th/12th September, 2008 and committing theft of his Innova car and thereafter disposing it of. The petitioner was arrested on 12.10.2008. The police after the investigation presented the challan against him and also other co-accused. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the charges have been framed. It is stated that about sixteen witnesses have been examined. 2. Conditional bail was granted to the petitioner, inter-alia, on one of the conditions that he shall present himself before the Court and the police whenever required to do so. The petitioner did not put in appearance on 3.11.2009 in the Court. As such, NBWs were issued for 16.12.2009. Pursuant to NBWs he was produced before the Court on 16.1.2010, on which date he was committed to the judicial custody. His bail application was rejected vide order dated 26.3.2010. As such, the present application has been moved for grant of his bail. 3. The petitioner is a resident of village Cheema Kalan, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jallandhar(Punjab) and the case was being tried at Una. According to him, he could not put in appearance on 3.11.2009 because of Punjab Bandh and when he came to know about the next date, which was fixed for 16.12.2009, while on his way to the Court he met with an accident because of the skidding of his scooter. 4. To verify the aforesaid facts with respect to the accident the learned trial Court had deputed Assistant Sub-Inspector of police. He submitted his report dated 16.3.2010 in the learned trial Court after conducting the verification. He found contention raised by the petitioner about sustaining injury in accident as alleged was correct as is revealed from the uncertified copies placed on record. There is nothing on record that on 3.11.2009 there was no call for "Punjab Bandh". 5. In view of the above facts and the explanation furnished by the trial Court, in my opinion, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. There is nothing on record that on 3.11.2009 there was no call for "Punjab Bandh". 5. In view of the above facts and the explanation furnished by the trial Court, in my opinion, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. As such, his request for bail is allowed on the condition that he shall furnish the bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, out of which one shall be the local, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner:- (i) shall present himself in the Court on 26th of August, 2010 and thereafter on all dates of hearing before the learned trial Court; (ii) shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police officer; (iii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, whatsoever. 6. Needless to say, the petitioner shall not cause breach of any of the conditions above. 7. Let an authenticated copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, forthwith for his information and compliance at his end. In case, parties apply for the urgent copy, it be supplied to them as per rules. 8. The application is disposed of.