Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1673 (HP)

Mohan Lal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-09-14

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner namely Mohan Lal, who is behind the bars since 28th August, 2017, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of 10 days interim bail in case FIR No. RC.9(S)/2017,dated 22nd July, 2017 under Sections 302, 330, 331, 348, 323, 326, 218, 195, 196, 201 read with Section 120B, registered with CBI/SC1/ New Delhi. 2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that bail petitioner has lost his father late Sh. Budhia Ram, who left for heavenly abode on 10.9.2018. It is also not in dispute that bail petitioner is the sole son of above named deceased person and as such, he is required to remain present at his house for performing the last rites of his deceased father. Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that last rites of the deceased would be performed w.e.f. 16.9.2018 till 26.9.2018 and as such, bail petitioner be enlarged on bail for that period. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned counsel representing the respondentCBI, on the instructions of the investigating officer, who is present in Court, states that respondent CBI is not opposed to the aforesaid prayer, but bail petitioner may not be enlarged on bail for 10 days, rather he be permitted to participate in the function scheduled to be held on 26.9.2018 i.e. "Dharamshanti/Kriya". 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments contained in the application, this Court is of the view that bail petitioner being sole son of deceased Budhia Ram is necessarily required at his house for performing last rites of his late father. Bail petitioner is the sole son of his deceased father and undisputedly none can substitute him as far as performance of last rites of his father is concerned. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to accept the prayer for enlargement of bail having been made on behalf of the bail petitioner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present bail petition is allowed. Jail authority is directed to release the bail petitioner on interim bail for 10 days w.e.f. 16.09.2018 to 26.09.2018, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/( Rs. One lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, where he has been lodged. Jail authority is directed to release the bail petitioner on interim bail for 10 days w.e.f. 16.09.2018 to 26.09.2018, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/( Rs. One lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Jail, where he has been lodged. Bail petitioner shall surrender before the Jail authority on 27th September, 2018 on or before 12:00 PM. 6. Needless to say, bail petitioner while on bail would restrict his activities to the last rites of his deceased father and shall not go anywhere save and except his house and Haridwar, if required. 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 his bail. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy dasti.