Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 197 (HP)

Dharam Pal Singh v. Anand Singh

2012-04-16

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. - Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has filed F.I.R. bearing No. 262/2011 dated 19.11.2011 under sections 363, 366 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1, Surjeet Kaur and Deepak Singh. According to him, his daughter, namely, Harpreet Kaur has studied upto 9th standard. She has left her studies from 10th standard. He had been working as constable in I.T.B.P. His daughter has been kidnapped/abducted by Surjeet Kaur, Deepak Singh and Sonu. He tried to trace his daughter but to no avail. According to him, his daughter might have been forced to marry son of Anand Singh. 2. Respondent No.1 Anand Singh was arrested by the police in sequel to registration of FIR No. 262/2011 dated 19.11.2011. He applied for regular bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail on 28.12.2011. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P-1). 3. Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan has strenuously argued that in the present case respondent No. 1 could not be enlarged on bail taking into consideration the gravity of offence and stage of investigation. He then argued that respondent No.1 had undertaken before the Panchayat that in case no legal action is taken against his son, he will produce his son. He finally contended that respondent No. 1 and other members of his family are aware about the whereabouts of Sonu and Harpreet Kaur. 4. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar has supported the order dated 28.12.2011. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings. 6. Respondent No.1 is father of Sonu. He has been arrested by the police only on the ground that at one given time, he had apprised the Panchayat that in case no legal action is taken against his son, he will produce his son and daughter of the petitioner. The police had obtained remand of respondent No.1 for three days. Sonu and Harpreet have eloped on 19.11.2011. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned order. He has come to a right conclusion that the bail could not be rejected merely on the ground that respondent No.1 has admitted before the Panchayat that he will produce his son and Harpreet Kaur in case no action is taken against him. Sonu and Harpreet have eloped on 19.11.2011. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned order. He has come to a right conclusion that the bail could not be rejected merely on the ground that respondent No.1 has admitted before the Panchayat that he will produce his son and Harpreet Kaur in case no action is taken against him. Additional Sessions Judge has put the following three conditions while enlarging respondents No.1 and 2 on bail: (1) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing any fact to the court or the police. (2) That the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor will try to win over the prosecution witness or terrorise in any manner. (3) That the petitioner shall make themselves available as and when required to do so by investigating agency or the Ld. Court as the case may be. 7. The petitioner has failed to point out that respondents No.1 and 2 have misused the bail granted to them. The bail could only be cancelled on the basis of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances and not in routine manner. 8. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 have held that the rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Their Lordships have further held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of the bail, broadly are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner, including on the basis of material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding. Their Lordships have further held that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. 9. Their Lordships have further held that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. 9. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has tried to interfere with due course of administration of justice or in any manner has abused the bail granted to him. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.