Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 103 (HP)

Surinder Sankhyan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-01-29

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. This order will dispose of all the petitions arise out of FIR No.15 of 2014, registered under Sections 307, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur. 2. Record produced by the Investigating Officer reveals that a piece of land bearing khasra No.1328, situated in Up Mohal, Kosarian (Bilaspur) is the bone of contention between the complainant and the accused-petitioners. This land has been allotted by the State Government to the complainant. Admittedly, he has started developing this plot. Against it, accused-party seems to have approached the Civil Court with a suit for injunction. The Civil Court in the interim has directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the land in dispute. As per own case of the complainant, on 19.1.2014, the day of occurrence, he was called by police to Police Chowki, City, Bilaspur and handed over the copy of interim order passed by the Civil Court for its compliance. He allegedly went to the site and apprised the labour and also the JCB operator about the stay order and also that though he has been supplied with copy of a stay order, however, without supporting documents. The complainant on the other hand after receipt of the copy of such order continued with the work on the site or directed the labour not to execute any work and has come forward with the version that when he was present on the site with labour and JCB operator, the accused-petitioners started pelting stones on them and that none of them received any injury on their person. On his complaint, this case has been registered against the accused petitioners. 3. All the accused-petitioners are residents of District Bilaspur. They all have associated with the investigation of the case. The only complaint is that the accused-petitioners are of quarrelsome nature and there is every likelihood of breach of peace and causing damage to the life and property of the complainant by them. 4. Learned Counsel representing the accused-petitioners submit that none of the accused except accused Mohit Sankhyan was present on the site as the others reside in the main town. Accused-petitioner Mohit Sankhyan was on his way alongwith his wife and children from hospital to their house and it is the complainant himself who started hurling abuses to them and pelted stones on them. Accused-petitioner Mohit Sankhyan was on his way alongwith his wife and children from hospital to their house and it is the complainant himself who started hurling abuses to them and pelted stones on them. The labour present there also joined hands with him in pelting stones. Consequently, he also made a complaint against the complainant party. Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, submits that on the basis of the complaint made by accused-petitioner Mohit Sankhyan rapat has been entered in the daily-diary. 5. In view of the claims and counter-claims and also the investigation conducted at this stage coupled with the factum of accused-petitioners are local residents and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, their custodial interrogation is not required, all the petitions deserve to be allowed and the accused-petitioners are entitled to be admitted on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the above said case registered against them, vide FIR No.15 of 2014 in therefore, allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the accused-petitioners in connection with the above said case registered against them, they shall be released on bail, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/arresting Police Officer. They shall further abide by the following conditions that they shall: (a) Make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation in a manner so as to take it to its logical end. (b) Not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. (c) Not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer. (d) Shall maintain law and order and not involve themselves in any unlawful activity including breach of peace. (e) Not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 6. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them; the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 7. (e) Not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 6. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them; the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 7. 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 these petitions alone. 8. The petitions stand disposed of. Copy Dasti.