Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 284 (HP)

KULDEEP S/O SH. HANS RAJ v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-01-09

KULDIP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 50 of 2010 which have arisen out of FIR No. 169 dated 29.10.2007 registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 342, 380, 395, 411, 458 and 120-B IPC. Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 50 of 2010 have been filed by Kuldeep S/o Sh. Hans Raj, Swaraj Singh, Kuldeep S/o Sh. Harbansh and Raj Kumar, respectively. In Cr.MP(M) No. 50 of 2010, it has been stated that FIR No. 169 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007 has been registered at Police Station, Nalagarh but in fact the FIR No.169 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007 has been registered at Police Station, Baddi. Status report has been filed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 42 of 2010. 2. Heard and perused the record. In Cr.MP(M) No. 42 of 2010, It has been alleged that on 30.10.2007 the petitioner had received a telephone call from Police Station, Baddi. The petitioner went to the Police Station, Baddi on 30.10.2007. He was asked by the police to become approver in a theft case which had taken place at Baddi or he would be implicated in the case. He was informed that on 28.10.2007 a dacoity had taken place at Luminous Power Company, Baddi and FIR No. 169 of 2007 was registered. The petitioner was taken into custody on 30.10.2007 and since then he is in custody. The investigation in the case is complete and even challan has been presented in the Court, but no charge has been framed. It has been submitted that two persons named in the FIR have been released on bail. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The bail applications filed by the petitioner earlier have been rejected by this Court or by the Court below and their details have been given by the petitioner in the application. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 3. In Cr.MP(M) No. 43 of 2010, It has been alleged that on 1st and 2nd November, 2007 the petitioner was on leave and had gone to his native place Pauri Garhwal from Baddi. The family of the petitioner had received a phone call from Police Station, Baddi and on 3.11.2007, the petitioner appeared before the Police at Police Station, Baddi. In Cr.MP(M) No. 43 of 2010, It has been alleged that on 1st and 2nd November, 2007 the petitioner was on leave and had gone to his native place Pauri Garhwal from Baddi. The family of the petitioner had received a phone call from Police Station, Baddi and on 3.11.2007, the petitioner appeared before the Police at Police Station, Baddi. The petitioner was taken into custody on 3.11.2007. it has been submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner had earlier filed bail applications which have been rejected and details of such bail applications have been given in the application. It has been submitted that some co-accused have already been granted bail. The investigation in the case is complete and even challan has been presented in the Court, but no charge has been framed. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 4. In Cr.MP(M) No. 44 of 2010, It has been alleged that petitioner was on leave on 1st and 2nd November, 2007 and had gone to Amritsar from Baddi. The family of the petitioner had received a phone call from Police Station, Baddi and enquired about the petitioner. On 3.11.2007, the petitioner appeared before the Police at Police Station, Baddi. The petitioner was arrested on 3.11.2007. The petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner had earlier filed bail applications which have been rejected and details of such bail applications have been given in the application. The investigation in the case is complete and even challan has been presented in the Court, but no charge has been framed. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 5. In Cr.MP(M) No. 50 of 2010, It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has already spent more than two years in the jail. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected on 24.12.2009 by the lower Court on the ground that there is no change of circumstance. Some accused have already been released on bail by this Court. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 6. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected on 24.12.2009 by the lower Court on the ground that there is no change of circumstance. Some accused have already been released on bail by this Court. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail applications on the grounds that all the petitioners have committed serious offence. The challan has been presented in the Court on 30.1.2008. It has been submitted that Kuldeep S/o Sh. Hans Raj is an accused in FIR No. 150 of 2007 and FIR No. 153 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Baddi both under Sections 395 IPC. The prosecution has shown apprehension that Kuldeep S/o Sh. Hans Raj may influence the prosecution witnesses. The learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail applications. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners have prayed bail on the ground of parity and have stated that Anil Kumar accused has already been granted bail by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 1067 of 2009 on 23.12.2009. Similarly, on 15.1.2010 in FIR No. 169 of 2007 Vikrant Singh, Sudarshan alias Sonu, Sanjeev Kumar and Rakesh alias Keshu have already been granted bail by this Court. In fact, learned Additional Advocate General has stated that in all nine accused have already been granted bail in FIR No. 169 of 2007. The petitioners are in custody for the last more than two years, challan was presented on 30.1.2008 and till now, according to learned counsel for the petitioners even charge has not been framed. There is no effective progress in the trial. The witnesses to be examined by the prosecution during trial are several. The petitioners are languishing in jail for the last more than two years. It is not clear how much time will be consumed for completion of the trial. The law will take its own course so far FIR No.150 of 2007 and FIR No. 153 of 2007 are concerned. All the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. 8. In view of the above, all the petitions are allowed. It is not clear how much time will be consumed for completion of the trial. The law will take its own course so far FIR No.150 of 2007 and FIR No. 153 of 2007 are concerned. All the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. 8. In view of the above, all the petitions are allowed. All the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 169 dated 29.10.2007 registered at Police Station, Baddi under Sections 342, 380, 395, 411, 458 and 120-B IPC, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-each with two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court where the case is pending with the condition that the petitioners shall regularly appear in the Court during trial, they shall report at Police Station, Baddi in the first week of every month till the completion of trial arising out of aforesaid FIR and presence of petitioners shall be marked at Police Station, Baddi in token of their putting presence and such record shall be maintained at Police Station, Baddi. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorize the prosecution witnesses. In case any condition is violated by the petitioners, then the respondent shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. 9. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti