Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 136 (HP)

Ashwani Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2017-03-07

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J (Oral) - The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 195 of 2016, dated 21.12.2016, registered under Sections 379, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Sections 32 and 33 of Indian Forest Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, 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, so the petitioner may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, when on 18.12.2016 Forest Officials'' Team was patrolling in 1/23 Masu Dimkri along with local person, namely, Shri Lal Chand, it came to their notice that the petitioner along with other co-accused has illegally felled two trees of ''deodar'' (Cedrus deodara). As per the prosecution, nine logs of deodar trees, having volume of 0.633 m3, were recovered and rest of the timber had been misplaced by the petitioner and other co-accused. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and statements of the witnesses were also recorded. As per the prosecution, co-accused, Nes Ram, has been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. During the course of investigation an axe and a saw have been taken into possession. As per the prosecution, the bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Challan is yet to be presented in the Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 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, so the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 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, so the petitioner may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner remained absconding for some time and he has also committed serious offence by illegally felling two ''deodar'' trees and there is every likelihood that the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, so his bail application may be dismissed. 6. At this stage, taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner is resident of the place and he is joining the investigation and co-operating in it and he is also neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court finds that 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, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 195 of 2016, dated 21.12.2016, registered under Sections 379, 34 IPC and Sections 32 and 33 of Indian Forest Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P., be released, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. 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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.