Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 63 (HP)

Rajinder Kumar Rewari v. State of H. P.

2014-01-09

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, J (oral) ASI Manmohan Singh, I.O. Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P. is present long with record. Record perused and returned. Status report is already on record. 2. In connection with FIR No.4 of 2013 dated 08.01.2013, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the instant application seeking anticipatory bail. On 07.01.2014, interim order was passed granting interim bail. Petitioner has fully cooperated during the investigation. No recovery is to be effected from him. Investigation is almost complete and challan is likely to be filed. Also it is seen that his co-accused stands enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2013, in Cr.MP(M) No.11233 of 2013, titled as Gian Singh Versus State of H.P. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that the petitioner has fully cooperated during investigation. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that petitioner has made out a case for confirmation of interim order dated 07.01.2014. It is not the case of the police that petitioner has not cooperated during investigation. There is no likelihood of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court in the event of trial being initiated against him. There is nothing on record to highlight the past criminal conduct of the petitioner. 3. Keeping in view the entire attending circumstances and taking a holistic view of the matter, petitioner has made out a case in his favour. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. 4. The Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during investigation. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. 5. Having taken into consideration the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show that there is reason to believe that the threat of arrest is imminent. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 07.01.2014 is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down therein. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 7. 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. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti.