Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1607 (HP)

Prem Dass v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-09-05

SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - Asi Jaswant Singh, Police Station, Nerwa, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. 2. F.I.R. No.205/2018, under the provisions of of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was registered at Police Station, Baoileauganj, District Solan, H.P. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court seeking bail under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 20.8.2018, this Court passed an interim order directing the petitioner to be released on interim bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that investigation is in progress. 4. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel states that petitioner shall make himself available for investigation at Police Station, as and when directed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that petitioner has made out a case for confirmation of interim order dated 20.8.2018. Petitioner is permanent resident of State of H.P. and during investigation has fully cooperated and there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court in the event of trial being initiated against him. There is nothing on record to highlight the past criminal conduct of the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. 6. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 7. 7. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another , (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8. Having holistically considered the nature of offence and the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioneraccused, and also in view of the law discussed, herein above, I feel that it is a fit case in which petitioner should be enlarged on bail. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 20.8.2018, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down therein. Needless to add, petitioner is not likely to flee from the territorial jurisdiction of the country. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time Challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 10. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. 11. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. 12. Liberty reserved to the State to revive the petition or seek cancellation of the bail, if need so arises subsequently. Copy Dasti.