Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 126 (HP)

Vinod Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-01-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 178 of 2017, dated 26.10.2017, under Sections 323, 147, 149, 504, 354A IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989, Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P. 2. As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 26.10.2017 Shri Raseela Ram (complainant) moved a complaint to the police, wherein he has stated that on 26.10.2017 only his daughters-in-law were present in his house. The petitioners, at about 01:30 p.m. came over the suit land and forcibly tried to plough the land with a tractor and when the daughters-in-law objected to this, the petitioner gave beatings to them with leg and fist blows. As per the complainant, the petitioner also used abusive racial and vulgar words to his daughters-in-law and threatened them to do away with their lives. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered and investigation ensued. The spot map was prepared and the spot was photographed. Torn shirt of Smt. Neelam Kumari (daughterin-law of the complainant) was taken into possession and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The police also recorded the statement of Smt. Neelam Kumari under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the prosecution, the petitioners are joining the investigation. It was also unearthed during the course of investigation that a matter is pending in the Civil Court qua the disputed property. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed for dismissal of the applications of the petitioners. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent. They are residents 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 Deputy Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 5. They are residents 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 Deputy Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail. 6. At this stage taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also the fact that they are residents of the place, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and order dated 14.11.2017 is made absolute. However, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners 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 petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti.