Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 69 (HP)

Neha Vardhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-01-20

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) : 1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 318/2016 dated 30.12.2016, under Sections 336, 304, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Status report filed by the respondent-State is perused. According to the status report, the petitioner has joined investigation as per order dated 11.1.2017. No recovery is required to be effected from the petitioner, except one register purportedly pertaining to birth of the children. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Hamirpur. She would always be available to face the trial. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the ad-interim order dated 11.1.2017 passed in this application is made absolute, subject to following conditions: (a) She shall make available the alleged register pertaining to birth of the children to the Investigating Agency forthwith; (b) She shall make herself 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. However, she being the lady shall be interrogated strictly according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure; (c) She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (d) She 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 (e) She shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 3. However, petitioner is ordered to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer, on the basis of a written Hukamnama. It is made clear that single default of non-compliance with the written Hukamnama would entail immediate cancellation of bail at the instance of State. 4. It is also clarified that if the petitioner misuses her liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 5. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. 5. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. Copy dasti.