Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1396 (HP)

Jiwat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-10-10

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner surrendered to the custody of this Court and was granted ad-interim bail vide order dated 25.09.2014. Today, the records of the investigation produced and status report has been filed. From the records of the investigation, it appears that one Bimla Devi, wife of Bhogi Ram had lodged FIR No.92/2014 at Police Station, Anni, District Kullu on 26.08.2014 where the petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 504, 506 IPC and sub-sections 1 and 10 of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The defence of the petitioner is that as Power of Attorney of his daughter Satya Devi, she had sold her part of land situated at Village Kathala measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas to the son of the complainant namely Dalip Joshi, Advocate. It is thereafter alleged that the complainant and her family members encroached upon the adjoining land belonging to the petitioner measuring 5 biswas by planting nursery of apple plants thereupon through the Chowkidar. When the petitioner came to know about said fact, he objected. The complainant and his family members admitted their fault and assured the petitioner that they would not repeat such acts in future. They further requested the petitioner not to uproot the nursery and they would share half of the plants generated from the nursery. 3. In the last week of August, 2014, when the petitioner had gone to his apple orchard, he found that the apple plants had been removed from the nursery and on making inquiry, he was told by one Radha Devi, who was working on the land of the complainant’s son that she had been instructed by the complainant to remove all the plants from the nursery. On the evening of 17.09.2014 when the son of the petitioner was contacted by the police authorities, it transpired that an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the prosecution version is that on 26.08.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. when the complainant was working in her orchard, the petitioner trespassed over the land of the complainant and hurled abuses on her, on the basis of which FIR has been registered. 5. I have heard Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner and Ms. Parul Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. 5. I have heard Shri Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner and Ms. Parul Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case. 6. From the perusal of the records of the investigation, it is revealed that no recoveries are required to be effected and the investigation is complete. Insofar as the complicity of the petitioner is concerned, the same can only be established during regular trial and merely because of the case has been registered against the petitioner cannot be a ground to keep him behind the bars. The petitioner is a senior citizen and permanent resident of District Kullu and is therefore presumed to have roots in the society and, therefore, there is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. 7. It is not even the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioner would misuse his liberty and would in any manner threaten the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the records of the investigation. As such, this is a fit case where the discretion of bail ought to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the present bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 92/2014 registered at Police Station, Anni, District Kullu on 26.08.2014, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and sub-sections 1 and 10 of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anni, District Kullu, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses; (iii) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. (iv) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anni, District Kullu, is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 9. (iv) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anni, District Kullu, is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 9. Any observation made hereinabove 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 hereinabove. Petition stands disposed of.