Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1338 (HP)

Kartik Puri v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-12-05

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 295 of 2017, dated 19.11.2017, under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) registered at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, 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. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 19.11.2017, Home Guard Manjeet Singh filed a complaint of Shri Raj Kumar (complainant) with the police, wherein it was contended that the complainant, who is posted as HHG in Police Station Hamirpur, during his night during on 18.11.2017, 11:00 p.m. to 19.11.2017 05:00 a.m. alongwith HHG Dev Raj was on patrol duty. At about 12:00/12:15 a.m. when they reached near Girls Hostel, the petitioner alongwith the one more person came on a scooty bearing registration No. HP-22C-1660 and started loudly uttering filthy language on phone. On being objected by them, the petitioner and that another person started abusing them and they also threatened them. The petitioner called, through phone, their friends and four more boys came there on two bikes. The complainant further contended that one of the boy caught hold of him from his collar, due to which his shirt got torn and he also gave him fist blow on his eye. As per the complainant, he can identify two boys. HHG Dev Raj rescued him from the petitioner. Thereafter, all the boys fled away from the spot. The complainant informed Constable Ravi Kumar about the incident. On the basis of the complainant, so filed by the complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded. During the investigation it was revealed that the petitioner and one Sumeet Sharma were involved in the occurrence. The complainant was got medically examined in RH, Hamirpur, and the nature of injury was opined to be simple. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded. During the investigation it was revealed that the petitioner and one Sumeet Sharma were involved in the occurrence. The complainant was got medically examined in RH, Hamirpur, and the nature of injury was opined to be simple. On 13.12.2017 the petitioner produced the scooty, which was used in the crime, and the same was taken into possession. As per the prosecution, the petitioner and accused Sumeet Sharma are very clever persons and the petitioner was earlier also involved in giving beatings to a Home Guard and qua which a separate case has been registered against him. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. The petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and joining and co-operating in the investigation and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, who is only 23 years old, and also other ancillary circumstances, which have come on record, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 295 of 2017, dated 19.11.2017, under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 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 the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as 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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.