Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 419 (HP)

Ram Lubhaya v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-20

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail application has been moved by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 229 of 2017, dated 17.09.2017, under Sections 452, 326, 323, 324, 307, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be enlarged on bail. 3. Police reports stand filed. As per the police report, on 17.09.2017, around 07:45 p.m., police received a telephonic call from Medical Officer, Kalyani, Private Hospital, Pathankot. The police were informed that a lady has been brought in the hospital in an injured condition, who sustained injuries in a quarrel. Police personnel went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Shri Manohar Lal (complainant and husband of the injured) under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that on 17.09.2017, at about 06:30 p.m., his son-in-law, Raman (one of the petitioner), to whom he has married his daughter Pooja came alongwith other petitioners to his house. He has further stated that his daughter Pooja is having strained relations with petitioner Raman and she used to reside in his hosue. During the day time Pooja had oral quarrel with Rohit (one of the petitioner and elder brother of petitioner Raman). All the petitioners started altercation with his wife (injured) and hit a darat (sickle) blow on her head and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the injured was shifted to hospital. On the basis of the statement, so made by the complainant to the police, a case was registered and police investigation ensued. The spot was photographed and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Police procured the treatment summary of the injured from the hospital. The Medical Officer opined the injury grievous in nature. As per the prosecution, the darat stands recovered. The petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and no recovery is to be effected at their instance. The challan is yet to be presented in the Court. Police procured the treatment summary of the injured from the hospital. The Medical Officer opined the injury grievous in nature. As per the prosecution, the darat stands recovered. The petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and no recovery is to be effected at their instance. The challan is yet to be presented in the Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. No recovery is to be effected at the instance of the petitioners. The petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioners have committed a serious offence, thus it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also keeping in view the inter se relationship of the parties, injury, as sustained by the injured and all other aspects of the case, which have come on record, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 229 of 2017, dated 17.09.2017, under Sections 452, 326, 323, 324, 307, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50, 000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners 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. Order accordingly.