Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1062 (HP)

Praveen Rana v. State of H. P.

2014-08-07

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 65/2014 under Section 353, 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi. He is resident of village Maman (Lad Bharol) Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. On 10.05.2014, around 1.20 P.M. he allegedly parked his motor-cycle on the road outside the shop of a barber at Lad Bharol. Complainant, who has been posted as Senior Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Lad Bharol happens to come there with family in his car. Since, on account of parking of the motor-cycle on the road sufficient space was not available to drive the car ahead, therefore, the complainant blew horn. One boy came out from the shop and removed the motor-cycle from the road. The complainant drove the car ahead. On that day, the complainant was on night duty in the hospital. Around 9.50 P.M. one motor-cycle entered the premises of the Hospital and the motorcyclist started blowing horn loudly. After sometime, one person came to the quarter of the complainant and asked him to attend to a patient brought for treatment. The complainant accompanied the said person and proceeded towards the hospital. However, on the way another person was standing. Both persons allegedly caught hold the complainant and administered beatings. On raising alarm, they both fled away on the motor-cycle. The motor-cycle was bullet of black colour, however, complainant could not read its number, being not visible. 3. On the other hand, in view of the copy of the complaint lodged by the accused-petitioner to the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi at 2.00 A.M. during the night intervening 10/11.05.2014 annexed to this application, which as a matter of fact, is prior in time, as compared to the report lodged by the complainant with the police disclose entirely a different version of the episode, because as per this document the accused-petitioner had taken his ailing mother for treatment to Community Health Centre, Lad Bharol. The doctor on duty allegedly was in drunkard condition and when asked to treat his mother, the doctor slapped him. Therefore, he had to shift his mother to Civil Hospital, Baijnath. Although, record pertaining to the treatment of the mother of accused-petitioner in the Hospital at Baijnath has not been placed on record, yet, learned counsel, on instructions, submits that such record is available with the accused-petitioner. Therefore, he had to shift his mother to Civil Hospital, Baijnath. Although, record pertaining to the treatment of the mother of accused-petitioner in the Hospital at Baijnath has not been placed on record, yet, learned counsel, on instructions, submits that such record is available with the accused-petitioner. Any how, the complaint, a copy whereof is at page 6 of this petition creates a doubt qua the manner in which the incident, as per police version has taken place. 4. The record reveals that the accused-petitioner has associated with the investigation of the case. He has been interrogated by the police. It has been urged that during the course of interrogation he has not disclosed the name of his co-accused who also administered beatings to the complainant and that he is required to be interrogated only to this extent. I am afraid that the custody of a person accused of an offence can be ordered to be entrusted to the police merely that while his interrogation in custody he should divulge the name of the co-accused and that too when any statement made by an accused while in the custody has no evidentiary value. I, therefore, find the present not a case where custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is required. On the other hand, he is permanent resident of Lad Bharol, District Mandi, therefore, can reasonably be believed to have roots in the society. There is no likelihood of the accused-petitioner fleeing away from justice or not available for the purpose of further interrogation, if required. 5. This application is, therefore, allowed and it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 65/2014, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `20,000/-(rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Police Officer. The accused-petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions: that he shall:- (a) regularly attend the trial Court on each and every hearing if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not temper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. The accused-petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions: that he shall:- (a) regularly attend the trial Court on each and every hearing if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not temper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. (c) not make any inducement, threat or promise 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. (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 6. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuses his liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, 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 this petition alone. The petition stands disposed of.