Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 93 (HP)

Varinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-01-15

P.S.RANA

body2016
ORDER : P.S.Rana, Judge. Present petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 265 of 2015 dated 22.9.2015 registered under Sections 307, 324 and 506 IPC at Police Station Haroli District Una HP. 2. It is pleaded that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence. It is further pleaded that petitioner has been falsely implicated in criminal case with ulterior motive. It is further pleaded that investigation is completed and challan already stood filed before criminal court of law after completion of investigation. It is further pleaded that petitioner has also sustained injuries. It is further pleaded that there is no one to take care of wife and female minor child of petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner will be abide by the terms and conditions imposed by Court. Prayer for acceptance of bail petition sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 265 of 2015 dated 22.9.2015 is registered under Sections 307, 324 and 506 IPC at police station Haroli District Una HP. There is recital in police report that on dated 21.9.2015 statement of injured Anju Mankotia was recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC. There is further recital in police report that on dated 21.9.2015 at about 8 PM accused was inflicting injury upon his sister-in-law namely Anju Mankotia upon her face, neck and cheek with sickle (Sharp edged weapon). There is further recital in police report that Anju Mankotia was crying and her mother-in-law Krishna Devi was rescuing her. There is further recital in police report that thereafter one Jagjit Singh also rescued injured Anju Mankotia from the clutches of accused. There is further recital in police report that on earlier occasion also accused had tried to inflict injuries upon his sister-in-law namely Anju Mankotia. There is further recital in police report that medical examination of Anju Mankotia was conducted. There is further recital in police report that as per medical examination injuries sustained by Anju Mankotia were dangerous to life. There is further recital in police report that site plan was prepared and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. There is further recital in police report that statement of accused under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 also recorded and sickle was recovered as per disclosure statement given by accused. There is further recital in police report that site plan was prepared and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. There is further recital in police report that statement of accused under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 also recorded and sickle was recovered as per disclosure statement given by accused. There is further recital in police report that investigation is completed and challan already stood filed in criminal court of law. There is further recital in police report that chemical analyst report also received from RFSL Dharamshala. There is further recital in police report that accused has also beaten his wife who is residing in her parental house since one year. There is further recital in police report that accused has also killed one woman at Australia and remained in custody for thirteen years. There is further recital in police report that accused has also beaten his sisterin- law on the earlier occasion and thereafter matter was placed before gram panchayat and compromise was executed. There is further recital in police report that husband of injured namely Anju Mankotia is working in foreign country. There is further recital in police report that if accused is released on bail at this stage then accused will commit similar criminal offence again. Prayer for rejection of bail petition sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and Court also heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner and also perused the record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in the present bail petition. (1) Whether bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as alleged in memorandum of grounds of bail petition after completion of investigation and after filing of investigation report under section 173 Cr.PC?. (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 he has been falsely implicated in the present case cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that investigation is completed and final investigation report under Section 173 Cr.PC stood filed in competent criminal Court of law and trial will be disposed of in due course of time and bail petition filed by petitioner be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors should be considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) 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) 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.L.J 702 S.C titled Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and it was held that object of bail is not punitive in nature. It was held that bail is rule and committal to jail is 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 indefinite period. 8. Anju Mankotia sister-in-law of petitioner already discharged from hospital and in view of fact that investigation already completed and investigation report stood filed before competent court of law under Section 173 Cr.PC and in view of fact that accused is presumed to be innocent till convicted by competent Court of law court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to release petitioner on bail. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then interest of general public and State will not be adversely effected. 9. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then interest of general public and State will not be adversely effected. 9. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that if the petitioner is released on bail then petitioner will commit similar offence again and on this ground bail petition be rejected is devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that conditional bail will be granted to petitioner. It is further held that if petitioner will flout terms and conditions of bail order then prosecution agency or investigating agency will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail as provided under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in accordance with law. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 (Final order). 10. In view of findings on point No.1 bail petition filed by petitioner is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court on following terms and conditions. (i) That petitioner will join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) 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. (iii) That petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of Court. (iv) That petitioner will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. (v) That petitioner will attend the proceedings of learned trial Court regularly till conclusion of the trial. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. Bail petition disposed of. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of.