Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 251 (HP)

Rajinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-03-28

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 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. 12 of2017, dated 19.01.2017, under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, 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 is also not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 19.01.2017 Forest Guard Devinder Singh telephonically informed the police that on preceding night some persons were cutting the trees and they fled away from the spot. A scooty was parked there and in the morning the same remained parked there. A ‘khair’ tree was found to be cut and four logs of different size were also there. Logs alongwith scooty were ceased. Police investigated the matter and during investigation it was unearthed on 18.01.2017 the petitioner got his hand saw repaired from one Shri Sukhvinder Singh. Shri Sukhvinder Singh also identified the scooty of the petitioner. It was also unearthed that the petitioner asked for help to Reena Devi and told her that he went in the jungle to cut forest tree, however, forest people came there and he fled away and left his scooty parked there. Statement of Reena Devi was also recorded. The petitioner, a co-accused were arrested and one co-accused is yet to be arrested, as he is absconding. The petitioner did not joint the investigation till 26.03.2017. No recovery from the petitioner is to be affected. 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 case in hand. 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. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. 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. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and there is possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice. Lastly, he has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. At this stage, taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner is resident of the place and he has joined the investigation and also co-operating in it. He is 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. 12 of 2017, dated 19.01.2017, under Section 379 IPC, registered at Police Station, Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P., be released on bail, 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.