Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1434 (HP)

Lalman v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-10-16

Sanjay Karol

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral) Sub Inspector Shri Ramesh Chand, Police Station, Talai, is present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 2. Accused-petitioner Lalman was taken into custody on 23.6.2014, in connection with FIR No.59/14, dated 22.6.2014, under the provisions of Sections 308, 147, 149, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Talai, District Bilaspur. 3. As per the case set up by the police, on 22.6.2014, accused alongwith six other persons pelted stones on complainant Nanak Chand, his wife Neelam Kumari, brother Baldev Raj and Salochna Devi, as a result of which they sustained injuries. Grievous injuries were received by Salochna Devi on her head. They were also threatened with dire consequences. 4. Accused has prayed that he be released on bail, on the ground that he has not committed any offence and that his co-accused have already been released on bail. 5. Present bail petition is opposed on the ground that the accused-petitioner, alongwith his co-accused, committed a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. It is neither desirable nor in public interest to enlarge him on bail. 6. Law with regard to grant of bail is now well settled. The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , laid down the following parameters for grant of bail:- “111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the court of Sessions or the High Court is always available.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The view stands reiterated by the apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 8. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 9. Petitioner is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh. He has got landed property. He is aged 40 years. Allegedly, petitioner inflicted injuries on the body of Smt. Salochna Devi. According to the prosecution, they could have been fatal. 10. 9. Petitioner is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh. He has got landed property. He is aged 40 years. Allegedly, petitioner inflicted injuries on the body of Smt. Salochna Devi. According to the prosecution, they could have been fatal. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record as also holistically considered the nature of offence and the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner-accused, and also in view of the law discussed, herein above, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met in allowing the present petition for bail, more so for the reason that at one point in time Civil litigation was pending before the Court and co accused stand already released on bail by the trial Court, vide order dated 2.7.2014. 11. As such, petitioner-accused Lalman is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. It is clarified that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, flee away from the jurisdiction of this Court, try to influence the witnesses or in any manner act and conduct himself so as to disentitle himself from the discretionary power. Also, he shall always make himself available during trial. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide letter No.HHCVIG/ Misc. Instructions/93- IV-7139, dated 18.3.2013. 12. 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. Petition stands disposed of.