Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 521 (HP)

Govind Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-02

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail applications have been moved by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their, in case FIR No. 33 of 2018, dated 30.01.2018, under Sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 365, 325, 201 and 506 IPC, Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 30.01.2018 Shri Puran Sharma (complainant) telephonically informed the police that owing to beatings given to him he is hospitalized. Police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that today when he reached near Tanda curve, the petitioners alongwith 10-15 more boys attacked him and took him in a vehicle to Pathankot and thereafter they took him to Nangal Bhoor. Subsequently he was taken to Pathankot Civil Hospital. The petitioners and others gave beatings to him with dandas. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered and medico legal certificate of the complainant was obtained. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. As per the police, now the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation. All the recoveries have been effected by the police and now nothing remains to be recovered. The investigation has unearthed that due to enmity the petitioners gave beatings to the complainant. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that some of the petitioners are residents of Punjab and in a position to flee from justice, so the bail petitions be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has further argued that there is litigation between the petitioners and the complainant, so this false case has been foisted upon them. The medico legal certificate of the complainant and the police record show that the case against the petitioners is false. He has argued that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served. 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 applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that in case the petitioners are released on bail they will repeat the same offence. She has further argued that taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the way injuries were inflicted upon the person of the complainant, present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour, so the bail applications be dismissed. 7. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners and also the fact that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars and also keeping in view overall aspects of the case, 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. 33 of 2018, dated 30.01.2018, under Sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 365, 325, 201 and 506 IPC, 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. 8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti.