Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1020 (HP)

Jai Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-30

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 86 of 2018, dated 14.04.2018, under Sections 324, 326(A) and 307 IPC, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 14.04.2018 Smt. Seti Devi (complainant) got her statement recorded before the police. She has stated that on 14.04.2018 her grand son, Uday Chauhan (victim), complained that the petitioner made him drink hot juice, which was so hot that he spilled out the same out of his mouth. The complainant checked the victim and found that his tongue and mouth were burnt. On the basis of the statement, so made by the complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner and the investigation ensued. The victim was medically examined and he was referred to Zonal Hospital. Police visited the spot and the substance which was spilled out by the victim on the spot of incident was taken into possession. As per the medical opinion there was some inflammable acid administered to the victim. The petitioner was arrested on 15.04.2018. Police prepared the spot map and sent the sample of substance, which was recovered from the spot, to forensic analysis and its report is awaited. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per the medical opinion there was extensive burn over the mouth and internal rejoin of mouth and the same may be caused by corrosive substance, which may be either acid or alkali. As per the prosecution, the challan is yet to be presented in the Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. As per the prosecution, the challan is yet to be presented in the Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. The petitioner is very clever person and in case he is released on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 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 counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent. 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, which shall be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the application be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after carefully going through the records and the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is neither a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. This Court also finds that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period and the ends of justice will only be met in case he enlarged on bail. This Court also finds that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period and the ends of justice will only be met in case he enlarged on bail. Thus, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 86 of 2018, dated 14.04.2018, under Sections 324, 326(A) and 307 IPC, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., he shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.