Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2680 (HP)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-12-19

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 116 of 2016, dated 12.11.2016, under Sections 332, 353, 452, 342, 504 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC’) registered at Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to extraneous circumstances. He is resident of the place and no purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 12.11.2016, complainant Rakesh Kumar, Constable No. 321, got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that he is working in Police Station, Nadaun, as General Duty Constable from 2016 and on 12.11.2016 he was on night duty in Police Help Room at Bus Stand, Nadaun. At about 7:45 p.m. he went to the shop of Ashok Kumar (petitioner herein) wherefrom noise was coming and he asked not to create noise. On this, Ashok Kumar started abusing him and thereafter the complainant came to Police Help Room, but the petitioner also came there alongwith his son and driver and dragged him to his shop and gave him beatings and also damaged his uniform. Police registered a case against the present petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case as the complainant was paying for the juice, which he has taken from the shop of the complainant, in old currency note of Rs. 500/- which the petitioner refused to accept. It is also submitted that in fact the complainant gave beatings to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is making entirely a false case and as the petitioner is involved in a crime against the police, he may not be released on bail. 7. It is also submitted that in fact the complainant gave beatings to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is making entirely a false case and as the petitioner is involved in a crime against the police, he may not be released on bail. 7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that for such a small offence, as registered by the police, the petitioner, who is a juice seller at Nadaun, is behind the bars since 12-13 November, 2016, and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars, as the investigation in the present case is complete. 8. This Court has taken into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant, which are, in fact, on his finger and other simple injuries and the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and is not in a position to flee from justice, nor is he in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for unlimited period. This Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner, so it is ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith on bail on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned ACJM/JMIC, Nadaun in case FIR No. 116 of 2016, dated 12.11.2016, under Sections 332, 353, 452, 342, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Nadaun. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the 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 Investigating Officer or Court. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.