Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 303 (HP)

TARA CHAND v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-04-11

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASI Gian Chand, Investigating officer, Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record on Cr. MP (M) No. 261 of 2013-D 2. F.I.R. No. 19 of 2013 was registered at Police Station, Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. on 28.3.2013, under Section 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? The Code of Criminal Procedure. On 2.4.2013 this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. Mr. B.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record documents to show that prior to the occurrence of the incident, father of the co-accused Sunil had lodged two complaints with the police in relation to offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code as also under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is also urged that the present F.I.R. is counterblast and result of prior animosity. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record produced by ASI Gian Chand, Investigating Officer, Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. Evidently petitioner has joined investigation alongwith the other co-accused persons. They have visited the police station on two occasions. To me it appears that the petitioner is cooperating in the investigation. No doubt the nature of the offence is serious and if it is ultimately proved that the petitioner along with the other co-accused are involved, then the sentence is severe. But holistically viewing the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Petitioner belongs to the family of co-accused Sunil (petitioner in Cr. MP (M) No. 261 of 2013) whose father had lodged F.I.R. against the complainant prior to the occurrence of the incident in question. 4. HAVING perused the status report as also heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that prima facie the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. MP (M) No. 261 of 2013) whose father had lodged F.I.R. against the complainant prior to the occurrence of the incident in question. 4. HAVING perused the status report as also heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that prima facie the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. 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. 5. 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. 6. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, the interim order dated 2.4.2013 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. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. Liberty granted to the State to move for cancellation of the bail if petitioner does not cooperate during investigation. 7. 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. Liberty granted to the State to move for cancellation of the bail if petitioner does not cooperate during investigation. 7. 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. Copy dasti.