Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 558 (HP)

Amar Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-06-18

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Police report has been filed. Investigating Officer, Head Constable, Subhash Chand of Police Station, Rohru has also produced the record. 2. Heard. 3. The present, as a matter of fact, is a case where the accused-petitioner after his arrest on 14.7.2012 in the case registered against him vide FIR No.67 of 2012 in Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code is in judicial custody. The police has filed final report and charge also stands framed against him. The trial presently is at the stage of recording the prosecution evidence. Previously also, the petitioner has filed Cr.MP(M) No.1127 of 2012 for grant of bail which was disposed of by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order, Annexure P-1. The order reveals that the petitioner has been given the liberty to file appropriate application afresh either before the trial Court or before this Court after the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded. The trial Court is stated to have deferred the recording of her statement on the previous date may be on account of she having filed an application Annexure P-1/A under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the case. 4. Be it stated that vide order Annexure P-1, this Court had reserved the liberty to the petitioner to file application for grant of bail either before the trial Court or in this Court, however, after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix in the trial Court. However, the filing of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the case by her itself is a changed circumstance and extends a legal right in favour of the petitioner to file application for grant of bail even before recording of her statement. The position on the date when order Annexure P-1 was passed in the previous application filed by the petitioner for the grant of bail was somewhat different as on that day no such application for withdrawal of the case was filed by the prosecutrix. Therefore, it is in this backdrop, the order reserving liberty to the petitioner to file application for grant of bail after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix came to be passed. Therefore, it is in this backdrop, the order reserving liberty to the petitioner to file application for grant of bail after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix came to be passed. In the changed circumstances, as highlighted hereinabove, the order Annexure P-1 does not come in the way of the accused-petitioner to file an application afresh, however, before learned trial Court seized of the matter and having the entire record. 5. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of finally. Copy dasti.