Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 98 (HP)

Ichhiya Devi v. State of H. P.

2014-01-24

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. (Oral) Both the petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 392/12, dated 3.12.2012 under Sections 498-A/306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the police of Police Station Indora, district Kangra, H.P. FIR against them has been registered at the instance of Kuldip Singh, father of deceased Shivani @ Puja. 2. The allegations of maltreatment have been levelled against the accused petitioners in the complaint. A suicidal note, allegedly in the hands of the deceased, has also of investigation. 3. The present is a case where the trial against the accused-petitioner is at an advanced stage as the prosecution evidence mostly stands recorded. Whether they have committed the offence in the manner as claimed in the police report and the documents annexed therewith or they are guilty or not, has to be determined after holding full trial. However, at this stage when the prosecution evidence mostly stands recorded and the accused/petitioners are permanent residents of district Kangra, this Court feels that their further detention in judicial custody is unwarranted. This application, therefore, succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. 2. The accused-petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with the case registered against them under Sections 498-A/306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 392/12, dated 3.12.2012, in Police Station Indora, District Kangra, if not required in any other case, be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of rupees 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate/any other Judicial Magistrate at Kangra and shall further abide by the conditions that they shall:- of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (c) not leave the territory of Indian without the prior permission of the Court. 5. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 6. 5. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 6. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these petitions alone. The applications stand accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.