Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 837 (HP)

Sarishta Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-07-07

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The present petition has been preferred by the bail petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C for enlarging her on bail for hers allegedly having committed offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 (x) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in case FIR No. 42/15 of 26.6.2015, registered at Police Station, Chintpurni, District Una, H.P. 2. Dy. S.P Jatinder kumar, SDPO Amb is present in the Court and has apprised this Court that the bail petitioner has rendered full and efficacious cooperation in the investigation carried out by him into the offences allegedly committed by the bail petitioner. He further apprised this Court that the investigation into the offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, has come to an end. 3. On the previous date, the bail petitioner surrendered herself to the jurisdiction of this Court and today too she has surrendered to the jurisdiction of this Court, which comprises and constitutes ‘deemed custody’ within the meaning and ambit of Section 439 Cr.P.C so as to render the instant petition maintainable under the aforesaid provisions of law, there being a statutory bar under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the preferment of a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. Consequently, given the cooperation rendered by the bail petitioner and also given the fact that the investigation has come to an end and further given the absence of material demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail petitioner, there is every likelihood of the bail petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as a sequel then this Court does not deem it fit and proper to order for the custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner. Accordingly the indulgence of bail is granted to her and the order rendered on 29th June, 2015 is confirmed, subject to hers complying with the following conditions :- 1. That she shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency; 2. That she shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police; 3. That she shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency; 2. That she shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police; 3. That she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; 4. That she shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned; 5. That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody; 6. That she shall apply for bail afresh when the challan is filed before the trial Court. In view of above, petition stands disposed of. 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.