Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 194 (HP)

Ram Pal v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-02-16

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J —The petitioner is seeking regular bail in case FIR No.18 of 2018, dated 23.01.2018, under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. 2. Fresh police status report stands filed and record of investigation has also been produced by the Investigating Officer. As per status report, during investigation the case under Section 307 IPC has not been found to be made out and thus, the said Section stands dropped. Now, only non-bailable offence under Section 379 IPC remains. The basis for this offence is the statement of victim Stinder Singh, wherein he has stated that Rs.2, 23, 000/- were also snatched by the assailants and liquor was put in his mouth. During investigation, complainant Satinder Singh has supplied the bank account numbers of PNB Branch, Punjabar and UCO Bank Branch, Gagret, for verifying the transactions of these accounts to ascertain veracity of his allegation. The incident is of 20th January, 2018. According to status report, corresponding transactions of such a huge amount during the period nearer to the date of incident were not found in these bank accounts. 3. Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, has opposed the bail application and has submitted that there are withdrawals of Rs.2.6 lac on 15.12.2017 and Rs.1.5 lac on 10.01.2018 from the account of complainant and in facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a case of theft but of robbery and has contended that delay in lodging FIR was caused on account of unconsciousness of complainant for injuries inflicted upon him by petitioner. Therefore, he has opposed confirmation of bail to petitioner. 4. From medical evidence produced before me, complainant has sustained only one injury and was incapable of making statement due to high consumption of liquor. Allegedly, he was beaten by rod but no corresponding injury was found on his body. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of incident, Somnath and Ganesh had reached at the spot and also that complainant had informed about the assailants to Somnath on his mobile whereafter he had reached at the spot and had taken the car of complainant from the spot in presence of assailants. 6. 5. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of incident, Somnath and Ganesh had reached at the spot and also that complainant had informed about the assailants to Somnath on his mobile whereafter he had reached at the spot and had taken the car of complainant from the spot in presence of assailants. 6. It is also the case of the prosecution that father of the complainant had reported the matter to the police through telephone after noticing his son lying at the bank of "Khad" below the bridge. In this report, Gurdass Ram, father of the complainant, has not disclosed the name of any assailants, whereas as per the statement of Somnath recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had been attacked by the assailants on the spot before taking away the car of the complainant and thereafter, he had met with the parents of complainant and brought them on the spot. Another eye witness Ganesh Kumar, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that when he had tried to save the complainant from the assailants, they also beaten him. He has further stated that when he went down below the bridge after hearing the voice of complainant Satinder Singh, he found Satinder Singh lying in the water, who was taken out by him from the water. Thereafter, parents of the complainant, police and ambulance had reached at the spot. Information given to the police at the first hand and the statements of eye witnesses Somnath and Ganesh Kumar recorded lateron, prima-facie, are irreconcilable and veracity of allegation of theft is yet under investigation. Entire evidence is to be appreciated finally by the trial Court after completion of trial. However, in view of the status report as well as the record produced before me today, in my opinion, it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner, as prayed. 7. Entire evidence is to be appreciated finally by the trial Court after completion of trial. However, in view of the status report as well as the record produced before me today, in my opinion, it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner, as prayed. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.18 of 2018, dated 23.01.2018, registered at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50, 000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Una, District Una, H.P., with the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses; (iii) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. (iv) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 8. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Una, District Una, H.P., is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139, dated 18.03.2013. 9. Any observation made hereinabove, 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 hereinabove. 10. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. Copy "Dasti".