Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1164 (HP)

Surya Chandel v. State of H. P.

2014-08-29

P.S.RANA

body2014
JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, Judge. Order:- Present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 78 of 2014 dated 22.04.2014 registered under Sections 341, 323, 506-B IPC read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 at Police Station Ghumarwin District Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh. 2. It is pleaded that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further pleaded that investigation of the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from applicant. It is further pleaded that applicant will cooperate with the investigation agency and will not hamper in any manner the investigation of the case. It is further pleaded that applicant will not give any coercion, threat or promise to any witness of occurrence or any person acquainted with the facts of the case. It is further pleaded that applicant will abide by all the conditions of the Court. Prayer for acceptance of bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is sought. 3. Per contra police report in connection with case FIR No. 78 of 2014 dated 22.04.2014 registered under Sections 341, 323, 506B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 of Arms Act 1959 at Police Station Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP filed. There is recital in police report that on dated 22.04.2014 secret information was received in Police Station that a quarrel was going on at Gandhi Chowk Ghumarwin. Police officials visited the spot and one Vikas Chand son of Sukh Dev resident of village Amarpur Tehsil and Police Station Ghumarwin District Bilaspur was found in injured condition and he was brought to Civil Hospital Ghumarwin for his medical treatment and MLC report was obtained. Vikas Chand filed a complaint alleging that on dated 22.04.2014 in the evening at 8.15 PM he along with Navneet Kumar Sharma were standing for going to his residential house and nearby him Rajesh Kumar, Dinesh, Rishu and Ajay were also standing. In the meanwhile Tata Sumo came and stopped at Gandhi Chowk Ghumarwin. There is further recital in police report that Vijay Kaushal, Gaurav Sharma and Surya boarded down from the Tata Sumo and moved toward complainant Vikas Chand and thereafter Vijay Kaushal attacked him with sharp edged weapon. In the meanwhile Tata Sumo came and stopped at Gandhi Chowk Ghumarwin. There is further recital in police report that Vijay Kaushal, Gaurav Sharma and Surya boarded down from the Tata Sumo and moved toward complainant Vikas Chand and thereafter Vijay Kaushal attacked him with sharp edged weapon. There is further recital in police report that complainant lifted his right hand in order to save him and sustained injury upon his right arm and shoulder. There is further recital in police report that thereafter Surya was also in possession of Khokhari (Sharp edged weapon) and he tried to inflict injury upon Dinesh but Dinesh did not sustain any injury. There is further recital in police report that thereafter all the accused persons boarded in Tata Sumo and ran towards Hamirpur side and also threatened the complainant that they would kill him. There is further recital in police report that thereafter Gaurav also threatened the complainant through phone that they would kill him. Thereafter a case was registered and medical examination of Vikas Chand was conducted at Civil Hospital Ghumarwin and MLC report was obtained. As per MLC and X-ray reports Vikas Chand has sustained simple injury. Site plan was also prepared. Co-accused Gaurav has been released on bail by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge Ghumarwin on 01.05.2014 and Tata Sumo No. HP 69A-0698 also took into possession which has been got released to original owner namely Amit Sharma. There is further recital in police report that Vijay Kaushal and Surya Chandel have also joined investigation of the case. There is further recital in police report that co accused Vijay Kaushal has produced sword and co-accused Surya has produced Khokhari (Sharp edged weapon) which were took into possession by the police. There is further recital in police report that as of today nine following FIRs are pending in Court against the applicant: (i) Case FIR No.2 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 under Sections 341, 324 and 506 IPC in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. (ii) Case FIR No. 233/2012 dated 2.11.2012 under Sections 341, 323, 427 IPC in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. (iii) Case FIR No. 167 of 2011 dated 5.9.2011 registered under Sections 341, 323, 452, 382 and 427 IPC in Police Station Barmana District Bilaspur. (iv) Case FIR No. 157 of 2011 dated 26.08.2011 registered under Sections 452, 323, 427 and 341 IPC in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. (iii) Case FIR No. 167 of 2011 dated 5.9.2011 registered under Sections 341, 323, 452, 382 and 427 IPC in Police Station Barmana District Bilaspur. (iv) Case FIR No. 157 of 2011 dated 26.08.2011 registered under Sections 452, 323, 427 and 341 IPC in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. (v) Case FIR No. 269 of 2011 dated 27.12.2011 registered under Section 379, 279, 337 IPC in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur.(vi) Case FIR No. 314 of 2011 dated 10.12.2011 registered under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. (vii) Case FIR No. 250 of 2012 dated 7.12.2012 registered under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC Police Station Sadar Bilaspur. (viii) Case FIR No. 66 of 2012 dated 21.4.2012 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station Ghumarwain District Bilaspur. (ix) Case FIR No. 207 of 2013 dated 21.9.2013 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC in Police Station Bilaspur. There is further recital in police report that anticipatory bail application filed before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin was withdrawn. There is further recital in police report that bail application filed by co-accused Surya Chandel be rejected. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and Court also heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and on this ground present bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. The fact whether applicant is innocent or not cannot be decided at this stage. The same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that investigation of the present case is almost complete and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and on this ground bail application be allowed is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. 6. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that investigation of the present case is almost complete and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and on this ground bail application be allowed is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors should be considered such as (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. SeeAIR1978SC179titledGurcharanSinghandothers Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. As per police report and as per reply filed by the State investigation of the present case is almost complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant. The trial of the case will be concluded in due course of time. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial and even if the applicant is released on bail at this stage the investigation and trial of the case will not be adversely effected in the present case. 7. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General that nine criminal cases are pending against the applicant and on this ground bail application filed by the applicant be rejected is devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court of law. It is also well settled law that simply filing of FIRs and simply pending of criminal cases did not mean that accused had committed criminal offence as alleged by the prosecution. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri.L.J 702 titled Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and it was held that object of bail is not punitive in nature. It was held that bail is rule and committal to jail is exception. Central Bureau of Investigation that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and it was held that object of bail is not punitive in nature. It was held that bail is rule and committal to jail is exception. It was also held that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that it is not in the interest of justice that accused should be kept in jail for indefinite period. 8. In view of the fact that no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and in view of the fact that investigation is almost complete and the applicant has not been convicted by any competent Court of law as of today and in view of fact that other co-accused released in the present case it is ordered that applicant will be released on bail on following terms and conditions on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court qua FIR No.78/2014 dated 22.4.2014. (i) That applicant will join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That applicant shall not directly or indirectly 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 to any police officer. (iii) That applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv) That applicant will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. (v) That applicant will give his residential address to the Investigating Officer in written manner.(vi) That applicant will attend proceedings of learned trial Court regularly. 9. In view of the above stated facts present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is accordingly disposed of. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.