Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 225 (HP)

ANGREZ SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-03

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. F.I.R. No. 238 of 2011 was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Distt. Shimla, H.P. on 20.11.2011, under the provisions of Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 468, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complainant, their mother withdrew certain sum of compensation which was awarded as a result of death of his father Sh. Harchand Singh. At the time of withdrawal of the amount of compensation, complainant was minor and their mother forged his signatures and withdrew the amount. The petitioner also conspired with their mother Smt. Balbir Kaur in the said act. The amount falling to the share of the complainant was neither accounted for nor given to the complainant. The F.I.R. was registered on 20.11.2011. The police investigated the matter and no arrest was made. It was only in the month of February, 2013 when the petitioner apprehended his arrest, he approached the Court for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 1st February, 2013 this Court granted interim bail, subject 2. TO certain conditions and directed the petitioner to join the investigation. Record reveals that the said order has been extended from time to time. The petitioner has been fully cooperating during the course of investigation and has always made himself available as and when required. Having perused the record, I am of the considered view that keeping in view the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has prima facie made out a case for grant of bail. 3. THIS Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during investigation. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. 4. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. 4. HAVING taken into consideration the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show that there is reason to believe that the threat of arrest is imminent. For all the aforesaid reasons, the interim order dated 1.2.2013 is made absolute. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. Petitioner is resident of Punjab and shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. 5. ANY observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Petition stands disposed.