Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 86 (HP)

Reeta Devi W/o Sh. Raj Kumar v. State of H. P.

2016-01-08

P.S.RANA

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present bail application is filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of bail in FIR No.56/2015 dated 20.06.2015 registered under Sections 302, 323, 325, 452, 436, 427, 147, 148, 149, 109, 115, 117 and 120-B IPC in Police Station Padhar Distt. Mandi (H.P.). 2. It is pleaded that investigation is completed and final investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 already stood filed in the competent Court of law. It is further pleaded that petitioner arrested merely on suspicion. It is further pleaded that petitioner is a poor lady having two minor children aged 8 years and 6 years and there is no body to look after them. It is further pleaded that petitioner will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Prayer for acceptance of bail petition sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. There is recital in police report that complainant Gurvinder Singh was working with Contractor Rajiv Sharma at place Shalgi/Kamand Distt. Mandi H.P. There is further recital in police report that complainant alongwith his friends Gagandeep, Balbinder Singh, Satbir Singh, Lovely, Hairy, Teja Singh, Simranjeet Singh and Jitender alias Sheru on dated 17.6.2015 came for work. There is further recital in police report that on dated 20.6.2015 at about 10.30 A.M. when the complaint and his friends were working then local labourers and other persons came and told them to stop the work. There is further recital in police report that when the complainant and his friends did not stop the work then accused persons inflicted injuries with stones and iron rods. There is further recital in police report that friend of the complainant party namely Simranjeet Singh in self defence fired with the pistol in the air. There is further recital in police report that thereafter the mob became aggressive and threw the workers in rivulet and damaged the vehicle and also damaged the office. There is further recital in police report that Simranjeet Singh, Tanvinder Singh alias Hairy, Tejinder Singh and Jitender Singh have died. After registration of the case investigation was conducted, site plan prepared, photographs obtained and damaged vehicle, broken module of office took into possession vide seizure memo. Blood clotted sticks, stones and iron rods also took into possession vide seizure memo. After registration of the case investigation was conducted, site plan prepared, photographs obtained and damaged vehicle, broken module of office took into possession vide seizure memo. Blood clotted sticks, stones and iron rods also took into possession vide seizure memo. Post mortem of deceased Simranjeet Singh, Tanvinder Singh alias Hairy, Tejinder Singh and Jitender Singh conducted and after post mortem dead bodies handed over to relatives of deceased. There is further recital in police report that injured Gurvinder Singh, Gagandeep, Baljinder Singh, Satbir Singh, Baljeet Singh alias Lovely were medically examined in Zonal Hospital Mandi and MLCs obtained. There is further recital in police report that investigation is complete and final investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 already stood filed in the competent Court of law. There is further recital in police report that petitioner Reeta Devi is the effective leader of labour union and she in collusion with other co-accused inflicted injuries with iron rods and sticks upon Gurvinder Singh, Gagandeep, Baljeet Singh, Baljinder Singh, Satbir Singh and committed homicide of Satvir Singh, Tabinder Singh, Jitender Singh and Tizender Singh and also burnt Bolero Mahindra Pick Up, Maruti Car and Tereno. If she is released on bail then she would commit similar criminal offence. Prayer for rejection of bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner. 5. Following points arise for determination in present bail application: (1) Whether petitioner is liable to be released on bail as per special provision of bail provided for women under proviso of Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 relating to criminal offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life after completion of investigation and after filing investigation report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure? (2) Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and she did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case will be disposed of on its merits after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Same fact will be decided when case will be disposed of on its merits after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is a woman and investigation is complete in the present case and final investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 already stood filed in the competent Court of law and petitioner be released on bail as per special provision of bail provided for women is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are to be considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) Character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) A reasonable possibility of the presence of accused not being secured at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) 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. Law Journal 702 SC titled Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at trial. It was held that grant of bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception. It was also held that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that it is not in the interest of justice that accused should be kept in jail for an indefinite period. In the present case investigation is completed, final investigation report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 already stood filed in the competent Court of law, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and trial of the case will be concluded in due course of time. There is special provision of bail for woman, sick or infirm persons or persons under the age of 16 years as per proviso clause of Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in non-bailable criminal offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is special provision of bail for woman, sick or infirm persons or persons under the age of 16 years as per proviso clause of Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in non-bailable criminal offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of the fact that petitioner is a woman and in view of the fact that investigation is completed and in view of the fact that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court and in view of the fact that as per prosecution story offence of murder was committed by mob on provocation of fire and in view of the fact that petitioner is mother of two minor children Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow the application. Court is also of the opinion that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage then interest of the general public and State will not be adversely affected. It was held in case reported in AIR 1957 Rajasthan page 10 titled Mt. Choti vs. State that special treatment of women and children in bail matter is not inconsistent with Article 15 of Constitution of India. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage then petitioner will induce and threat prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of merits for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditional bail will be granted to the petitioner. Court is of the opinion that conditions will be imposed upon the petitioner in bail order that petitioner will not induce or threat prosecution witnesses during trial of the criminal case. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner will induce or threat prosecution witnesses after grant of bail then prosecution agency or investigating agency will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail provided under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in accordance with law. In view of the 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 above bail application filed by petitioner under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is allowed as per special provision of bail for women. In view of the 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 above bail application filed by petitioner under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is allowed as per special provision of bail for women. It is ordered that petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.100000/- (One lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court on following terms and conditions. (i) That petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required. (ii) That petitioner will attend proceedings of the trial Court regularly till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) That petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (v) That petitioner will not commit similar offence qua which she is accused. Observation made hereinabove will not affect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of the present bail application. Cr.MP (M) No.1870/2015 is disposed of.