Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1491 (HP)

Madan Lal v. State of H. P.

2014-10-21

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral) 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. by the bail-applicant in case F.I.R. No. 68/2014 dated 11.4.2014, under Section 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. H.P. 2. The bail applicant is suffering judicial incarceration for his having committed offences under Section 420 and 120-B IPC. He is in judicial custody since 22.5.2014. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that at this stage four criminal cases are pending against the bail applicant in various courts. Consequently, he submits that in face of repeated and successive indulgence of the bail applicant in criminal activities, the according of facility of bail in his favour, may not be appropriate as there is every likelihood of his influencing the prosecution witnesses in the four cases pending against him. 3. Even though the factum of repeated and successive indulgence of the bail applicant in criminal activities and besides the factum of criminal cases pending against him is a necessary factor to be borne in mind when according or refusing the facility of bail to him. However, in view of the mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 2 SCC 382 wherein it has been enshrined that strict/stringent conditions can be imposed by this Court to obviate the factum of the bail applicant fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. The imposition of such conditions would also mitigate as well as allay the apprehension of the State that given his previous repeated indulgence in criminal activities he in case is granted bail would abuse his bail and re-indulge in criminal activities. The imposition of such conditions would also mitigate as well as allay the apprehension of the State that given his previous repeated indulgence in criminal activities he in case is granted bail would abuse his bail and re-indulge in criminal activities. Consequently, this Court to allay the apprehension of the respondent that there is likelihood of his influencing the witnesses as well as his again indulging in criminal activities, proceeds to afford the facility of the bail to the bail applicant subject to the following conditions: (i) That he shall furnish one personal and two surety bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur; (ii) That the bail applicant shall join the investigation, as and when required by the investigating agency; (iii) That he shall not directly or indirectly advance any threat, inducement or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iv) That he shall not leave India without the permission of the Court. (v) That in case of reindulgence of the bail applicant in criminal activities, it shall be open to the State to move for cancellation of the bail. (vi) That in case an intimation is received by the State that the bail applicant is influencing the witnesses in criminal cases pending against him then it shall be open for the state for apply for cancellation of the bail. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.