Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 945 (HP)

VIJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-11-11

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. A.S.I Ashok Kumar, Police Station, Sadar Chamba District Chamba, H.P. is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report filed and taken on record in Cr.MP(M) No.11646/2013. 2. F.I.R. No.230/2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Chamba District Chamba, on 24.10.2013. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 29.10.2013, 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. According to the prosecution, petitioner has wrongly recorded presence of some labourers on the same date in relation to two different contracts. Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General on instructions from Investigating Officer states that investigation is in progress. 3. PETITIONER, who is President of the Gram Panchayat concerned, has fully cooperated during investigation. No record is to be seized from the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view, more so in view of the stage of investigation, petitioner has made out a case for confirmation of interim order dated 29.10.2013. Petitioner during investigation has fully cooperated; he is a permanent resident of District Chamba and there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court in the event of trial being initiated against him. There is nothing on record to highlight the past criminal conduct of the petitioner. Keeping in view the entire attending circumstances and taking a holistic view of the matter, petitioner has made out a case in his favour. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. 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. 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, 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, interim order dated 29.10.2013 is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down therein. Needless to add, petitioner is permanent resident of District Chamba and is not likely to flee from the territorial jurisdiction of the State. 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 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.