Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 308 (HP)

Om Prakash v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 19 of 2018, dated 19.02.2018, under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 41 and 42 of IF Act and Sections 181, 192 and 196 of MV Act, Police Station Jhakri, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 3. Police reports stand filed. As per the police report, on 19.02.2018 statement of Shri Pratap Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he has deposed that on 18.02.2018, he alongwith other forest officials had laid a nakka at Ganvi. At about 03:30 a.m vehicles No. HP63B-0368 and HP06A-3426 were intercepted and upon checking vehicle No. HP63B-0368 was found loaded with 35 logs of deodar and 5 logs of kail. Vehicle No. HP06A-3426 was found loaded with 23 logs of kail. No document qua transportation of the wood was produced by both the drivers of the vehicles. Total 63 logs were stolen and being transported illegally. Upon the complaint, so made by Shri Pratap Singh, a case was registered and the police investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map, measured the recovered wood and took photographs of the spot. Both the vehicles were taken into possession and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused Rakesh Kumar, Sohan Singh, Satish Kumar and Noor Mohammad were arrested. Accused Satish Kumar made a disclosure statement and upon his identification from the house of the petitioner 12 logs of deodar were recovered. The petitioner could not produce any document authorizing him to keep those logs. The logs were taken in possession and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The spot was photographed and upon investigation, the logs were found to be of Forest Department. Upon the disclosure statement, so made by accused Rakesh Kumar, cowbarn and house of accused Sunder Singh and Chatter Singh were also raided. The logs were taken in possession and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The spot was photographed and upon investigation, the logs were found to be of Forest Department. Upon the disclosure statement, so made by accused Rakesh Kumar, cowbarn and house of accused Sunder Singh and Chatter Singh were also raided. During search 20 logs and 70 planks of kail were recovered and the same was taken into possession, as no legal document was produced. Accused Rakesh Kumar, Satish Kumar, Sohan Singh and Noor Mohammad have been enlarged on bail. Accused Sunder Singh also made a disclosure statement that he alongwith his son, Chatter Singh, sold the wood. Accused Sunder Singh and Chatter Singh were also enlarged on bail. The petitioner participated in the investigation on 28.02.2018. The investigation revealed that all the accused Sohan Singh and petitioner were in regular touch over phone. The petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and he is also in a position to flee from justice, so it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. The petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of arrest, in case FIR No. 19 of 2018, dated 19.02.2018, under Sections 379, 411 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 41 & 42 IF Act and Sections 181, 192 and 196 MV Act, registered at Police Station Jhakri, District Shimla, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of ''25, 000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner 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 petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.