Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1190 (HP)

Devinder Sood v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2017-10-24

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - By way of above captioned bail petitions filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C, 1973 prayer has been made for grant of bail in case FIR No. 236 of 2017, dated 4.10.2017, under Section 3 of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, read with Section 447, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sequel to orders dated 13.10.2017, Sh. Puneet Raghu, DY.S.P. has come present in Court along-with the record of the case. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Perusal of record/status report suggest that aforesaid FIR came to be registered against bail petitioners at the behest of complainant namely Sh. Arjun Singh, who alleged that the bail petitioners trespassed into his land and thereafter extended threats to him as well as his family members with intention to dispossess him from his land so that path is constructed over his land. Complainant specifically alleged that on 3.10.2017, while he was picking up bricks from his verandah, bail petitioners forcefully entered and threatened him with dire consequences. 4. Mr. B.S. Attri, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to the status report filed by the respondent-State, strenuously argued that bare perusal of the same suggest that dispute, if any, inter-se complainant and bail petitioners is of purely civil in nature and there was no occasion as such for the Investigating Agency to register case against bail petitioners under Section 3 of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, read with Section 447, 506 and 34 IPC. 5. Mr. M.L.Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the aforesaid prayer having been made by learned counsel for the bail petitioners, vehemently argued that bail petitions having been preferred on behalf of bail petitioners, deserves to be dismissed on the ground that despite order of this Court, they have failed to join investigation. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that since bail petitioners have not joined the investigation, Investigation Agency has not been able to complete investigation. However, Mr. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that since bail petitioners have not joined the investigation, Investigation Agency has not been able to complete investigation. However, Mr. Chauhan, fairly conceded that dispute inter-se parties is purely civil in nature and in this regard, communication has already been sent to Tehslidar, Kullu to demarcate the land so that dispute inter-se parties is settled for all times to come. Though, this Court after having taken note of the fact that petitioners have not joined investigation in terms of order dated 30th October, 2017, whereby, they were ordered to be released on bail, would have proceeded to dismiss present petitions, but taking note of the nature of the dispute inter-se parties, this Court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of bail petitioners and as such deems it fit to enlarge them on bail. However, it is made clear that in case, bail petitioners fail to join investigation by tomorrow, the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to arrest them during interrogation. 6. At this stage, Mr. B.S. Attri, Learned Counsel representing the petitioners, undertakes before this Court that all the bail petitioners shall join investigation by tomorrow at 2 P.M. 7. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. Petitioner is local resident of the place mentioned in the application and he shall remain available to face the trial and to undergo imprisonment, if any, imposed upon him. 8. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 9. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned JMIC, Manali with following conditions: (a) They shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 10. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 11. Any observations made herein-above shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. All the aforesaid petitions stand accordingly disposed of.