Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 632 (HP)

Naveen Batlahria v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-09-26

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) Nos. 891, 892 and 893 of 2012 filed by Naveen Batlahria, Ranjay Kumar and Moti Ram, respectively, under section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 147/12 dated 25.6.2012, registered at Police Station, Jawali, Distt. Kangra, under sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 186 IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. In Cr.MP(M) No. 891 of 2012, it has been stated that petitioner on the relevant day was in his Boot House, which is at a distance of half kilometer from Hara-Ka- Chowk, Tehsil Fatehpur. In Cr.MP(M) No. 892 of 2012, it has been stated that petitioner was going to employment exchange for registration of his name in the employment exchange, Fatehpur on the relevant day and was at a place known as Hara Ka Chowk. In Cr.MP(M) No. 893 of 2012, it has been stated that on the relevant day, the petitioner was going to civil hospital, Fatehpur for medical check up of his son, who was suffering from fever by bus and was at place Hara Ka Chowk. He was held up in traffic jam and remained on the spot for about one hour. 3. At Hara Ka Chowk, some persons were agitating on account of death of one Rajat against administration. The police has falsely implicated the petitioners in the case. The petitioners were not members of agitation nor they committed any offence. The petitioners in the first fortnight of September 2012 came to know that they have been implicated in the above case. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in the above case. The petitioners are innocent, they have committed no offence. No recoveries are to be made from the petitioners. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds. It has been stated that some persons have already been released on bail by the High Court. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) NO. 891 of 2012. 4. It has been stated that on 25.6.2012, Sub Inspector Tilak Raj, Incharge Police Post, Fatehpur was on duty for the purpose of law and order and Dharna at Hara Ka Chowk, Fatehpur on account of death of Rajat. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) NO. 891 of 2012. 4. It has been stated that on 25.6.2012, Sub Inspector Tilak Raj, Incharge Police Post, Fatehpur was on duty for the purpose of law and order and Dharna at Hara Ka Chowk, Fatehpur on account of death of Rajat. The agitators had blocked the highway Talwara to Jassur, many persons were sitting in the middle of the road and were not permitting the vehicles to cross the road. At about 4.00 p.m., the agitators got up and started moving. They damaged the traffic control gumti and forcibly closed the government offices, therefore, case was registered. 5. It has been stated that till now 15 accused have been arrested, there were many other persons involved in the commission of the offence. They damaged the public property and blocked the highway on the pretext of Rajat murder, they pelted stones. It has been stated that petitioners are to be arrested. The agitators have smashed the window panes of vehicles of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Divisional Police Officer. The investigation is in progress. The bail application of Chuhar Singh is pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. The petitioners are to be interrogated regarding presence of other persons in the agitation. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that there are in all 40-50 accused, out of them 15 have been released on bail. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail applications. 6. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioners did not participate in the agitation. There was traffic jam, two petitioners were held up in the traffic jam while the third petitioner is a shopkeeper having shop nearby. The police noticed the presence of the petitioners on the spot and therefore, petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. In the status report, no specific role in the agitation has been attributed to the petitioners except general allegations against them. There is no allegation that petitioners were in the mob with any particular person nor there is allegation that any particular act was played by any petitioner during the agitation. There is no allegation about the recovery of any particular item from any petitioner. There is no allegation that petitioners were in the mob with any particular person nor there is allegation that any particular act was played by any petitioner during the agitation. There is no allegation about the recovery of any particular item from any petitioner. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners will not be available for trial in case they are released on bail. The FIR was registered on 25.6.2012. There is no allegation that petitioners were not available after 25.6.2012. In these circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail, under section 438 Cr.P.C. 7. In view of above, all the petitions being Cr.MP(M) Nos. 891, 892 and 893 of 2012 filed by Naveen Batlahria, Ranjay Kumar and Moti Ram, respectively, are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 147/12 dated 25.6.2012, registered at Police Station, Jawali, Distt. Kangra, under sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 186 IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the investigating officer and shall not terrorise, overawe the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case.