Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 345 (HP)

RAJESH KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-25

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. ASI Joginder Singh, Police Station Theog, Distt. Shimla is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. 2. F.I.R. No. 141/12 was registered at Police Station, Theog, Distt. Shimla, H.P. on 18.9.2012, under the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 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 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. It is the allegation of the prosecution that one Sh. Prem singh impersonated himself as Pritam Singh and opened a bank account with the State Bank of Patiala, Kasumpti Brnach and in the opening form petitioner Sh. Rajesh Kumar introduced Sh. Pritam Singh as Sh. Prem Singh. 3. IT is the admitted case of the parties that petition filed by Sh. Prem Singh under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands allowed and order in his favour stands passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimla, which order has attained finality inasmuch as it has not been assailed by the State. 4. INVESTIGATION in the present case is almost complete. Investigating Officer ASI-Joginder Singh who is present in the Court submits that petitioner has fully cooperated during investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. Having perused the record as also heard the learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the offence and taking a holistic view of the attending circumstances, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if interim order dated 2.4.2013 is made absolute. 5. 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. 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. 6. 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 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. 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.