Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 316 (HP)

Pawanbala v. State of H. P.

2015-04-08

P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, Judge. Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 32 of 2015 dated 24.3.2015 registered under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC at P.S. Gagret District Una (H.P.) 2. It is pleaded that petitioner has been falsely implicated in present case. It is further pleaded that petitioner will not influence the prosecution witnesses and will not tamper with prosecution evidence. It is pleaded that petitioner has two minor children, parents and family to support. It is pleaded that any condition imposed by the Court will be binding on the petitioner. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report, FIR No. 32 of 2015 dated 24.3.2015 registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Gagret District Una (H.P.) against the petitioner. There is recital in police report that on dated 23.3.2015 at about 8.40 PM I.O. received information that one woman with consumption of poison was admitted in FRU Gagret. There is further recital in police report that police officials went to FRU Gagret where deceased was brought dead. There is further recital in police report that statement of Anu Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. There is recital in police report that deceased Rekha Devi was married in the year 2009 at Amb District Una (H.P.). There is recital in police report that deceased Rekha Devi has one son namely Jagdeep Kumar and one daughter Taniya. There is further recital in police report that deceased Rekha was in strained relations with her husband Pardeep Kumar. There is also recital in police report that Pardeep Kumar used to beat Rekha Devi generally and also used to demand dowry. There is further recital in police report that there was physical and mental torture to deceased Rekha Devi in her matrimonial home. There is recital in police report that on dated 10.2.2015 deceased Rekha met Smt. Anu Devi and told her that deceased was very aggrieved. There is recital in police report that deceased also told that her husband Pardeep Kumar and her elder brother-in-law Prem and elder sisterin- law Pawna have harassed the deceased and have beaten the deceased when the deceased was alive. There is recital in police report that deceased also told that her husband Pardeep Kumar and her elder brother-in-law Prem and elder sisterin- law Pawna have harassed the deceased and have beaten the deceased when the deceased was alive. There is recital in police report that accused persons have also told the deceased to bring money and deceased also used to inform Smt. Anu Devi complainant that her husband Pardeep Kumar, her elder brother-in-law and her elder sister-in-law Pawna used to beat the deceased. There is recital in police report that deceased Rekha Devi was pregnant. There is recital in police report that quarrel took place between co-accused Pardeep Kumar, co-accused Prem and co-accused Pawna and thereafter deceased had consumed poison. There is further recital in police report that after registration of case and during investigation post mortem of deceased was conducted and site plan was prepared. There is also recital in police report that statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded by way of videography. There is further recital in police report that co-accused Pardeep Kumar was arrested on dated 24.3.2015 and other co-accused namely Pawna and Prem have concealed themselves. There is recital in police report that since 27.3.2015 co-accused Pardeep Kumar is in judicial custody. There is further recital in police report that other co-accused namely Pawna and Prem Chand have not joined the investigation and recovery of bed sheet is still to be effected. There is also recital in police report that if petitioner is released on bail then petitioner would threat the prosecution witnesses. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by female petitioner is liable to be accepted in view of special provision of bail for women? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a female and she has special right to be released on bail on conditions imposed by Court is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri. L.J. 702 Apex Court DB 702, titled Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It was held that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Court is of the opinion that there is special provision to a female even in heinous criminal offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of the fact that petitioner has two minor children and parents to support Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail as per special provision of bail relating to women. It is held that if petitioner is released on bail then interest of State and general public will not be adversely affected. 8. It is held that if petitioner is released on bail then interest of State and general public will not be adversely affected. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that if bail is granted to petitioner then petitioner will induce, threat and influence the prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditional bail will be granted to petitioner and condition will be imposed in the bail order to the effect that petitioner will not induce and threat the prosecution witnesses. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner will flout the terms and conditions of bail order then non-petitioner will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail strictly in accordance with law. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 Final Order 9. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by female petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and in the event of arrest female petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer on following terms and conditions. (i) That the petitioner will join the investigation of case as and when required by Investigating Agency in accordance with law. (ii) That petitioner will not directly or indirectly 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 to any police officer. (iii) That the petitioner will not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (iv) That petitioner will give her residential address in written manner to the Investigating Officer and Court. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Bail petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure stands disposed of.