Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 342 (HP)

Hema Chauhan v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-25

B.S.THAKUR, R.S.VERMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. ASI Tej Singh, Police Station Brow, Distt. Kullu, is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report filed. 2. F.I.R. No. 15/13 was registered at Police Station, Brow, District Kullu, H.P. on 2.4.2013 under the provisions of Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17.4.2013 this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to her complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner committed theft of Rs. 50,000/- from the house of her uncle. The main accused has already been granted bail by this Court which order has attained finality. 3. INVESTIGATION in the present case is almost complete. Investigating Officer ASI- Tej Singh who is present in the Court submits that petitioner has fully cooperated during investigation. 4. HAVING perused the record 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. Her 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, she would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing her liberty nor would she interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. She, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make herself 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 17.4.2013 is made absolute. 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 17.4.2013 is made absolute. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time challan is presented in the Court for trial where after she 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. She shall make herself available for investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. She shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. 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.