Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 261 (HP)

SUBASH CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-08

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. MARRIAGE between petitioner Subash Chand and complainant Anuradha stood dissolved in terms of the judgment and decree dated 26th December, 2011 by the Court of District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. The parties had separated happily and the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. After the dissolution of the marriage complainant Anuradha lodged an F.I.R. 78/12 dated 24th May, 2012 under the provisions of Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Lambagaon, District Kangra, H.P. The dispute primarily is with regard to the return of articles of Istridhan. According to the petitioner, the same stand returned, which fact is disputed by the complainant. It is seen that the father of the petitioner had already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, petitioner has joined investigation and fully cooperated. I am of the considered view that the dispute appears to be more of civil in nature and perhaps matter was reported only as an after thought to extract more money from the petitioner. 3. IN the given facts and the circumstances, petitioner has prima facie made out a case for grant of bail. 4. 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. 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. 5. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 14.3.2013, as extended from time to time, is made absolute. 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. 5. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 14.3.2013, as extended from time to time, 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. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 6. 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.