Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 820 (HP)

Mazid Deen v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-09-17

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chaudhary, J. Heard. 2. Pursuant to the order passed on the previous date, the complainant Ridak Deen and his daughter Maskina Bibi, the victim are present in person. On being asked about the genuineness and authenticity of their respective affidavits annexed to this petition, they both have stated that now they have entered into a compromise with the accused-petitioner Mazid Deen. This Court proceeds further in this petition accordingly. 3. The allegations against the accused-petitioner as disclosed from the record, in a nutshell, are that he is brother-in-law (Jeth) of Maskina Bibi. The victim, Maskina Bibi is a widow. He allegedly used to torture her and also ask to leave the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. On 20th December, 2012 he poured kerosene oil on her and she had to be been taken for treatment to Civil Hospital, Indora. On being informed, the complainant and his brother rushed to the hospital where the Medical Officer on duty advised them to take her either to Nurpur or Pathankot for treatment. Accordingly, she was removed to the hospital at Pathankot. On the report made by the complainant, FIR No.427 of 2012 was registered against the accused-petitioner in Police Station Nurpur under Sections 452, 307 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. He has been arrested by the police and presently is in custody. In this petition, a prayer for grant of bail has been made on the ground that the parties being closely related have entered into a compromise and that in the changed circumstances, the accused-petitioner be directed to be released on bail. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Dimpey Gujraj v. Union Territory, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.115 of 2012, decided on 6.12.2012. 4. The offence, the accused-petitioner has committed, is not only grievous in nature, but heinous also as he had set on fire his own sister-in-law and thereby made an attempt to kill her. She being the victim, however, has now entered into a compromise with the accused. 4. The offence, the accused-petitioner has committed, is not only grievous in nature, but heinous also as he had set on fire his own sister-in-law and thereby made an attempt to kill her. She being the victim, however, has now entered into a compromise with the accused. It may not be appropriate for this Court to make any observation with regard to the settlement so arrived at between the accused and the complainant party and the same is left to be considered by a competent Court in appropriate proceedings, however, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dimpey Gujraj's case, supra, wherein it is held that the compounding of an offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is also permissible in case the victim enters into a compromise with the accused. Another leading judgment again that of a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has also been relied upon in Dimpey Gujraj's case, supra. 5. Therefore, irrespective of the offence, the accused-petitioner allegedly committed, is heinous and grievous in nature, this Court is inclined to admit him on bail as in the changed circumstances his further custody would not be warranted. 6. Therefore, I accept this application. It is directed that the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 452, 307 and 325 of Indian Penal Code vide FIR No.427 of 2012 in Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra and is in custody, if not required in any other case, be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of either of the Judicial Magistrates posted at Nurpur and he shall also abide by the following conditions: He shall - (a) make himself available for the purpose of interrogation if so required by the Investigating Agency and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (c) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 7. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 8. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. 9. The application accordingly stands disposed of.