Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1720 (HP)

Arjun Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2015-11-26

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioners are accused in FIR No. 342 of 2015, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Una H.P. on 30.10.2015 under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and has sought regular bail after surrendering to the custody of this Court on 6.11.2015 and 19.11.2015 respectively. The respondent has produced the records of investigation and has also filed the status report. 2. Records of investigation reveal that the complainant has purchased some share from the joint land in which petitioners and certain other persons are co-owners and the same has not been partitioned. The complainant after purchase has alleged that he had fixed the boundaries and thereafter fenced the land. The petitioners and other co-accused are alleged to have threatened him and called him by his caste and that apart it was also claimed that the fence raised by the complainant was also destroyed giving rise to the instant FIR. 3. It is not in dispute that the investigation in the case is complete and two of the co-accused have already been ordered to be released by the learned Sessions Judge, Una vide order dated 10.11.2015. The accusation against the petitioners is in no way more grave and serious to those of the accused, who have been granted bail and therefore, on the principle of parity alone, the petitioners are entitled to bail. 4. That apart, the complexity and exact role played by the accused would only come to light during the trial of the case and the same in itself cannot be a ground not to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioners, more especially when the very purpose of non granting bail is to secure the presence of the accused. Having said so, this is a fit case, wherein the discretion of bail ought to be extended to the petitioners, more particularly in view of the fact that they are permanent residents of District Una and it is not even the case of the prosecution that in the event of their being released on bail, they would in any manner jump the bail or would not participate in the trial. 5. 5. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in FIR No. 342 of 2015 registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Una, H.P., on 30.10.2015, under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Una, H.P., with the following conditions:- (i) they shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (ii) they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (iii) they shall not make any inducement, threat or promise 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 (iv) they shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Una, H.P., 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. 6. 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. 7. Copy Dasti.