Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 751 (HP)

Devkanya v. State of H. P.

2015-06-24

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order P.S. Rana, Judge. 1. Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 174 of 2015 dated 12.5.2015 registered under Sections 341, 504, 506 IPC at P.S. Dhalli Shimla. 2. It is pleaded that petitioner has purchased the flat from Rajesh Kumar Sektu and Rajesh Kumar has filed a false complaint against the petitioner. It is pleaded that Rajesh Kumar Sektu complainant had sold the flat to the petitioner without completion report from Municipal Corporation. It is further pleaded that after selling the flat to petitioner Rajesh Kumar Sektu had constructed one more storey illegally without approval from Municipal Corporation. It is pleaded that petitioner has also filed the complaint against Rajesh Kumar Sektu in the Municipal Corporation against the unauthorized construction. It is pleaded that FIR has been filed by petitioner Rajesh Kumar Sektu just to keep the petitioner mum relating to illegal construction raised by Rajesh Kumar Sektu. It is further pleaded that petitioner would join the investigation of the case whenever and wherever required by police and petitioner shall abide by terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application is sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 174 of 2015 dated 12.5.2015 registered against the petitioner under Sections 341, 504 and 506 IPC in P.S. Dhalli Shimla. There is recital in police report that complainant Rajesh Kumar Sektu had sold the flat to petitioner Smt. Dev Kanya. There is further recital in police report that petitioner Dev Kanya used to quarrel with Rajesh Kumar Sektu and his wife Reeta and also used abusive language against Rajesh Kumar Sektu and also threatened Rajesh Kumar to kill him. There is further recital in police report that there is dispute between Rajesh Kumar Sektu and petitioner namely Dev Kanya relating to parking of vehicle. There is further recital in police report that on dated 12.5.2005 at about 6.30 PM Dev Kanya wrongly parked her vehicle and blocked the path and abused Rajesh Kumar Sektu and his wife. There is further recital in police report that there is dispute between Rajesh Kumar Sektu and petitioner namely Dev Kanya relating to parking of vehicle. There is further recital in police report that on dated 12.5.2005 at about 6.30 PM Dev Kanya wrongly parked her vehicle and blocked the path and abused Rajesh Kumar Sektu and his wife. There is further recital in police report that after registration of case matter was investigated by Investigating Officer and site plan was prepared and photographs obtained and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is further recital in police report that petitioner has joined the investigation of case and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 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. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner and petitioner is female and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed 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. 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. There is special provision of bail to female. As per police report petitioner has joined the investigation of case and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. There is no recital in police report that custodial interrogation of petitioner is required. Court is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner then investigation of present case will not be hampered. Court is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail is granted then interest of State and general public will not be hampered. 8. Submission of learned Assistant 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 anticipatory bail will be granted to petitioner and if petitioner will flout the terms and conditions of anticipatory bail order then prosecution 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 petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and interim order dated 22.5.2015 is made absolute on following terms and conditions. (i) That petitioner will join the investigation of case as and when required by Investigating Agency in accordance with law. (ii) That petitioner shall join proceedings of trial of case regularly till conclusion of trial. (i) That petitioner will join the investigation of case as and when required by Investigating Agency in accordance with law. (ii) That petitioner shall join proceedings of trial of case regularly till conclusion of trial. (iii) 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. (iv) That the petitioner will not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (v) That petitioner will give her residential address in written manner to the Investigating Officer and Court. (vi) That petitioner will not commit similar offence qua which she is accused. 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.