Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 56 (HP)

Kewal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-01-09

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
Judgment Peolok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No. 204 of 2014 dated 4.8.2014, under sections 498-A, 306, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The petitioner is the brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased, who ended her life by consuming poison. Her husband was in the army. The petitioner is married to the sister of the deceased. The allegation of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he alongwith his mother used to torture and give beatings to the deceased, which compelled her to end her life. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a false case has been registered against him that he had been maltreating or torturing the deceased. If that would have been so, there would have atleast been some complaint somewhere regarding this fact and in the absence thereof, the petitioner cannot be impleaded only because he happens to be the brother-in-law (Devar) of the deceased. From the records, I find that prior to this incident there is no written complaint preferred by the deceased complaining to any person or authority regarding any maltreatment at the hands of the petitioner. 5. Though the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat has got recorded his statement against the petitioner regarding maltreatment being given to the deceased, but then this matter is a contentious one and for the present, suffice it to say that in absence of any proceeding being carried out by the Panchayat on the alleged complaint of the deceased, such bald statement cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. 6. The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 . It is pertinent to reproduce the observations made in paragraphs-21, 22, 23 and 40, as under:- “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.” 7. On the basis of the records, it cannot be said that the petitioner would in any manner impede the course and cause of justice, the petitioner in any manner would hamper the free, fair and full investigation, whether ultimately the petitioner would be convicted for the offences in question, will have to be determined during the course of the trial after complete material is placed on record by the parties. 8. In the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of bail. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and therefore, is presumed to have roots in the society and thus there can be no apprehension or possibility of his fleeing from justice. Otherwise also, stringent conditions for securing his presence for the purpose of investigation and trial etc. can always be imposed. 9. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and therefore, is presumed to have roots in the society and thus there can be no apprehension or possibility of his fleeing from justice. Otherwise also, stringent conditions for securing his presence for the purpose of investigation and trial etc. can always be imposed. 9. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in case he is not required in any other case, however, subject to the following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (ii) it is clarified that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation; (iii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (iv) he 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; (v) he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, 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 8.03.2013. 10. Any observation made hereinabove 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 hereinabove.