Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 879 (HP)

PARMOD KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-10-14

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. HC Sartaj Singh, No. 14, Police Station Gagret, Distt. Una, is present in Court. Status report filed and taken on record in Cr.MP (M) No. 11474 of 2013. Record perused and returned. 2. F.I.R. No. 123/2013 was registered at Police Station, Gagret, Distt. Una, H.P. on 31.8.2013, under the provisions of Sections 353, 336 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 26.9.2013 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. . As per the case of prosecution, petitioner and his co accused were involved in illegal transportation of forest property whereas it is the case of the petitioner(s) who are farmers, that they stand falsely implicated as they were travelling in the vehicle only as passengers of to bring back the agricultural produce from the market and not as owners of the forest produce. It is alleged that no action stands taken against the owner and driver of the vehicle. 3. UNDER instructions received from HC Sartaj Singh, who is present in the Court, it is submitted by Mr. R. S. Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General that the petitioner has fully cooperated during investigation. Investigation is complete and one of the accused persons i.e. the driver who was apprehended already stands released on bail. 4. HAVING perused the record as also heard 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 prima facie petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. As already observed, driver of the vehicle was apprehended and stands released on bail. 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. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. As already observed, driver of the vehicle was apprehended and stands released on bail. 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, of 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 26.9.2013 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. 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.