Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1465 (HP)

Mukesh Sharma v. State of H. P.

2018-08-07

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Heard. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report and the I.O. ASI Gurdev Singh, Police Station Dehra has produced the record. 3. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.115/18, registered against him under Sections 451, 353, 186, 189, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra with the allegations that on 11.7.2018, around 9.55 a.m., complainant HHC Satnam Singh No.833 was on duty outside the chambers of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra. The accused-petitioner came there and when tried to enter inside the chambers, the complainant asked the reason therefore and also prevented him from doing so, but of no avail as the accused-petitioner pushed aside the complainant and forcibly entered inside the chambers of learned Magistrate. Inside the chambers, the accused-petitioner allegedly made the utterances that her (Magistrate’s) predecessor has roughly dealt with him and that in case she also did something wrong with him in the case under Section 498-A IPC pending against him, he will drag her to the High Court and thereby he allegedly criminally intimidated the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra. The complainant overpowered the accused-petitioner with the assistance of others and he was brought outside the chambers. When taken to Police Station, he intimidated the police officials on duty there and even damaged a computer display, chair, table and case property of another case i.e. two bottles of country liquor. On the statement made under Section 154 Cr.P.C., by HHC Satnam Singh aforesaid, a duty constable, FIR came to be registered against the accused-petitioner. 4. It is seen that offences, the accused petitioner allegedly committed under Sections 451, 186, 189 and 506 IPC are compoundable. As regards the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, in item No. II of First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e, “Classification of offences against other laws”, which includes Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, also, the same as imprisonment, which shall not be less than six months, but may extend to 5 years or with fine, is non-bailable. Therefore, it is the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act allegedly committed by the accused petitioner non-bailable. Therefore, it is the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act allegedly committed by the accused petitioner non-bailable. 5. On having gone through the records and analyzing the rival submissions, normally a duty constable performs the duty in the Court premises or in the Court room and not outside the chambers of a Judicial Officer unless or until called upon to do so. Therefore, it is doubtful at this stage that the occurrence has taken place in the manner as claimed by the investigating agency. It is also interesting to note that the accused when taken to Police Station has not only damaged the Public Property like table, chairs, computer display there but also two bottles of country liquor, case property of another case in the presence of police staff on duty that too when brought there after having been overpowered by the complainant and other persons, the genuineness of such allegations at this stage also seem to be doubtful. 6. Anyhow, the investigation, in so far as the accused petitioner is concerned, is almost complete. It is borne out from the record that his custodial interrogation is not required. Being so, to curtail his freedom and liberty any further, would, in the given facts and circumstances, be unwarranted. Therefore, this application is allowed. Consequently, the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with the case registered against him vide FIR No. 115/18 in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. Therefore, this application is allowed. Consequently, the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with the case registered against him vide FIR No. 115/18 in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. The accused-petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions:- That he; a. shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation in a manner so as to take it to its logical end; b. shall 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, which learned trial Court shall decide in accordance with law; c. shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; d. shall not 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 Court or the Investigating Officer; e. shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 7. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him; the Investigating Agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 8. The observations hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of.