Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 6 (HP)

Preet Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-01-01

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —Bail petitioner namely Preet Kumar, who is in custody for the last nine months, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case FIR No, 71 of 2017, dated 01.04.2017, under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Asi Anjan Pal, Police Station, Sarkaghat, has come present in Court alongwith the record of the case. Mr. P.M.Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the investigating agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Perusal of the record/status report suggest that FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged at the behest of Shri Prithvi Raj i.e. father of deceased Pankaj Kumar, who in his statement recorded under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure, alleged that his son namely Pankaj Kumar has been murdered by Preet Kumar son of Sh. Nand Lal and Sanjay Kumar, son of Sh. Achhar Singh, who at the time of alleged incident were present with deceased Pankaj Kumar. 4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, case under Section 302 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the bail petitioner Preet Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Joginder Pal alias Kalu. During the investigation, police found involvement of present bail petitioner Preet Kumar as well as co-accused Joinder Pal @ Kalu in the alleged incident and accordingly they were arrested. As per police version, above named accused were seen with deceased Pankaj Kumar just before the alleged incident. Two persons namely Smt. Roshani Devi and Shri Anmol Dhiman disclosed to the police that they had seen Pankaj Kumar in the company of Joginder Pal @ Kalu and present bail petitioner namely Preet Kumar. Co-accused namely Joginder Pal @ Kalu approached this Court by way of Cr.MP(M) No.1360 of 2017 for grant of regular bail, this Court after having perused the record/ status report filed in that case enlarged the above named co-accused Joginder Pal on bail vide order dated 03.11.2017. Instant bail petition having been preferred on behalf of petitioner Preet Kumar came to be listed before this Court on 6.12.2017, on which date, notices were issued to the respondent/State with a direction to make available complete record. On 18.12.2017, Mr. Instant bail petition having been preferred on behalf of petitioner Preet Kumar came to be listed before this Court on 6.12.2017, on which date, notices were issued to the respondent/State with a direction to make available complete record. On 18.12.2017, Mr. K.S. Thakur, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the statement of complainant Prithvi Raj made before the learned trial Court, contended that no case is made out against the bail petitioner under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been falsely implicated in the case and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. This Court after having perused the statement allegedly made by complainant Prithvi Raj before the Court below, directed learned Additional Advocate General, to ascertain the authenticity and correctness of copies of statements, if any, made by complainant Prithvi Raj as well as other witness namely Smt. Roshani Devi. 6. Mr. P.M.Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, on 29.12.2017 after having obtained the instructions of investigating Officer, stated that copies of the statements placed on record are genuine and correct as per record. 7. Mr. K.S.Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to the record/status report, especially statement made by complainant Prithvi Raj (PW-2), strenuously argued that no case much less under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the bail petitioner. While making this Court to travel through the statement of PW-2, i.e. Prithvi Raj, learned counsel contended that it has nowhere come in his statement that his son i.e. deceased Pankaj Kumar was murdered by present bail petitioner as well as other co-accused Joginder Pal. Mr. Thakur, further contended that it is ample clear from the statement made by complainant that bail petitioner himself informed the complainant, who happened to be father of the deceased, that his son is lying unconscious on the road and thereafter he accompanied him to the spot. Mr. Thakur, further contended that it clearly emerge from the statement of PW-3 that when complainant saw deceased Pankaj Kumar on road, he was highly intoxicated and was not in a position to even stand. Mr. Mr. Thakur, further contended that it clearly emerge from the statement of PW-3 that when complainant saw deceased Pankaj Kumar on road, he was highly intoxicated and was not in a position to even stand. Mr. Thakur, further contended that even postmortem report placed on record, clearly suggests that at the time of unfortunate accident, deceased Pankaj Kumar was highly intoxicated and blood alcohol concentration was found to be 261.44 MG% and urine alcohol concentration was found to be 263.93 MG% as per the report of the chemical examiner. 8. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, contended that injuries which resulted in the death of deceased Pankaj Kumar i.e. "irreversible haemorrhagic shock secondary to blunt trauma thorax" could only occur due to accident. While referring to postmortem report, Mr. Thakur, forcibly contended that there is no mention, if any, of any external injury on the body of deceased Pankaj Kumar, save and except certain abrasions. While inviting attention of this Court to the statement of PW-3, Smt. Roshni Devi, Mr. Thakur, contended that she nowhere stated that she saw bail petitioner as well as other co-accused giving beatings, if any, to the deceased Pankaj Kumar, rather it has come in her statement that deceased Pankaj Kumar was weeping and at that time bail petitioner and other co-accused Joginder Pal were accompanying him. She further stated before the learned court below that when she enquired about the reason of weeping deceased Pankaj Kumar and others gave no answer. 9. Mr. Thakur, further contended that it is quite apparent from the statement of PW-3 that unfortunate incident happened in the month of April, at about 7:00 PM and there was no dark. PW-3, Smt. Roshni Devi in her cross-examination further admitted that deceased Pankaj Kumar was drunk and bail petitioner was helping him to stand up. She further admitted the suggestion put to her that Preet Kumar was saying to the deceased that stand up otherwise I am going to my house. She further stated before the Court below that complainant Prithvi Raj was called by accused Preet Kumar within five minutes and during that period she remained standing on the retaining wall in front of her house. Mr. She further stated before the Court below that complainant Prithvi Raj was called by accused Preet Kumar within five minutes and during that period she remained standing on the retaining wall in front of her house. Mr. Thakur, further invited attention of this Court to the statement of PW-2, where he admitted suggestion put to him that he suspected bail petitioner as well as other co-accused Sanjay Kumar, but as has been noticed above, no case was registered against the Sanjay Kumar, who happened to be son of PW-3, Smt. Roshni Devi. Mr. Thakur, while praying for enlargement of petitioner on bail, contended that since other co-accused namely Joginder Pal has been already enlarged on bail, present petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail. Mr. Thakur, submitted that since bail petitioner is a local resident of the area, there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice and he shall always remain available for trial. 10. Mr. P.M.Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the aforesaid prayer having been made by Mr. K.S. Thakur, learned Counsel, representing the bail petitioner, contended that no definite conclusion at this stage, can be drawn merely on the basis of statements made by PW-2, Prithvi Raj and PW-3, Smt. Roshni Devi because other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Mr. Negi, while inviting attention of this Court to the record/status report, strenuously argued that there is ample evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner namely Preet Kumar was in the company of deceased Pankaj Kumar at the time of accident and as such, his involvement in the alleged crime cannot be ruled out. Mr. Negi, further contended that since it stands duly established on record that bail petitioner was last seen in the company of deceased, bail petitioner owe an explanation how the deceased suffered injuries, which ultimately led to his death. While making prayer for rejection of bail having been filed by the petitioner, Mr. Negi, contended that keeping in view the gravity of offences allegedly committed by bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely. Mr. Negi, further contended that material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and in the event of petitioner''s being enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he may influence remaining prosecution witnesses or dissuade them to depose against him. Mr. Mr. Negi, further contended that material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and in the event of petitioner''s being enlarged on bail, there is possibility that he may influence remaining prosecution witnesses or dissuade them to depose against him. Mr. Negi, lastly contended that if in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court intends to release the bail petitioner on bail, he may be directed to make himself available for trial as and when required by the trial Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 12. After having carefully perused the record/status report as well as submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that at present there appears to be no direct evidence adduced on record against the bail petitioner suggestive of the fact that he alongwith other co-accused Joginder Pal @ Kalu hatched conspiracy to kill deceased Pankaj Kumar, rather there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, perusal whereof, suggest that present bail petitioner and deceased Pankaj Kumar were good friends and they had good family relation . 13. True, it is that there is evidence available on record, which indicates that deceased Pankaj Kumar was last seen in the company of bail petitioner Preet Kumar and co-accused Joginder Pal, but that cannot be a sufficient ground to conclude that both the accused named above, hatched criminal conspiracy, if any, to kill deceased Pankaj Kumar. As has been noticed hereinabove, it has categorically come in the report of postmortem that deceased Pankaj Kumar was highly intoxicated. Similarly, injury suffered by him, which ultimately led to his death, cannot be caused due to scuffle if any, between the bail petitioner and deceased, rather same could only be caused due to fall or accident. Interestingly, site plan prepared by the investigating agency, suggests that deceased Pankaj Kumar suffered injury after being hit by some vehicle. Investigating agency has also took into possession bus, which allegedly hit deceased Pankaj Kumar, but till date no report has been procured from RFSL with regard to marks, if any, of the bus or on the clothes of deceased Pankaj Kumar. 14. Investigating agency has also took into possession bus, which allegedly hit deceased Pankaj Kumar, but till date no report has been procured from RFSL with regard to marks, if any, of the bus or on the clothes of deceased Pankaj Kumar. 14. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds from the record that driver, who was allegedly driving the bus in question at the relevant time has denied the factum with regard to accident. He has stated to the investigating agency that on the relevant date bus had come late. Statement of PW-2, Prithvi Raj (complainant) nowhere indicates that present bail petitioner Preet Kumar as well as co-accused Joginder Pal hatched criminal conspiracy, if any, to kill deceased Pankaj Kumar, rather it has come in his statement that immediately after alleged incident bail petitioner Preet Kumar informed him and he accompanied him to the spot. In his statement, it has specifically come that when he reached the spot, deceased Pankaj Kumar was trying to stand, but he was unable to stand. Though, there is no whisper with regard to intoxication of deceased Pankaj Kumar in the statement of PW-2, but if same is read in conjunction with the statement of PW-3, it clearly emerge that deceased Pankaj Kumar was highly intoxicated that''s why he was unable to stand up, as has been clearly admitted by PW-2 in his statement. It also emerge in the statement of PW-2 that he lodged the complaint against the present bail petitioner and not co-accused Joginder Pal merely on suspicion. Moreover, it is not understood that when person namely Sanjay Kumar was also named by complainant, why his name was lateron deleted from the column of accused . 15. Another witness PW-3, Smt. Roshni Devi has also nowhere supported the case of the prosecution, rather it has also come in her statement that she saw bail petitioner Preet Kumar asking deceased Pankaj Kumar to go to home, otherwise he would go to his house. She has further stated in her statement that deceased Pankaj Kumar was intoxicated and bail petitioner Preet Kumar and other co-accused Joginder Pal were trying to make him stand. 16. She has further stated in her statement that deceased Pankaj Kumar was intoxicated and bail petitioner Preet Kumar and other co-accused Joginder Pal were trying to make him stand. 16. Though, aforesaid aspect of the matter is to be considered and decided by the court below on the basis of entire evidence adduced on record by the investigating agency, but this Court after having perused the record as well as depositions so far made by material prosecution witnesses i.e complainant and another so called eye witness PW-3, finds considerable force in the argument of Mr. K.S.Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner that at present there is no evidence of direct involvement of bail petitioner in the crime allegedly committed by him as well as co-accused and as such, this Court sees no reason to keep the present bail petitioner in jail for indefinite period during the pendency of trial, especially when other coaccused has been already enlarged on bail. Nothing has been placed on record by the investigating agency, which could persuade this Court to agree with the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice. Bail petitioner being local resident of the area shall remain available for trial as has been stated by learned counsel representing the bail petitioner. 17. By now it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation , (2012) 1 SCC 40 ; wherein it has been held as under:- "The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 18. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 19. Law with regard to grant of bail is now well settled. The apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others , (2011) AIR SC 312, while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab , (1980) 2 SCC 565 , laid down the following parameters for grant of bail:- "111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia''s case that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused''s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." 20. In Sundeep Kumar Bafna versus State of Maharashtra & another , (2014) 16 SCC 623 , wherein it has been held as under:- "8. Some poignant particulars of Section 437 CrPC may be pinpointed. First, whilst Section 497(1) of the old Code alluded to an accused being "brought before a Court", the present provision postulates the accused being "brought before a Court other than the High Court or a Court of Session" in respect of the commission of any non-bailable offence. As observed in Gurcharan Singh vs State( Delhi Admn) , (1978) 1 SCC 118 , there is no provision in the CrPC dealing with the production of an accused before the Court of Session or the High Court. But it must also be immediately noted that no provision categorically prohibits the production of an accused before either of these Courts. As observed in Gurcharan Singh vs State( Delhi Admn) , (1978) 1 SCC 118 , there is no provision in the CrPC dealing with the production of an accused before the Court of Session or the High Court. But it must also be immediately noted that no provision categorically prohibits the production of an accused before either of these Courts. The Legislature could have easily enunciated, by use of exclusionary or exclusive terminology, that the superior Courts of Sessions and High Court are bereft of this jurisdiction or if they were so empowered under the Old Code now stood denuded thereof. Our understanding is in conformity with Gurcharan Singh, as perforce it must. The scheme of the CrPC plainly provides that bail will not be extended to a person accused of the commission of a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, unless it is apparent to such a Court that it is incredible or beyond the realm of reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The enquiry of the Magistrate placed in this position would be akin to what is envisaged in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal , (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, that is, the alleged complicity of the accused should, on the factual matrix then presented or prevailing, lead to the overwhelming, incontrovertible and clear conclusion of his innocence. CrPC severely curtails the powers of the Magistrate while leaving that of the Court of Session and the High Court untouched and unfettered. It appears to us that this is the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at on a conjoint consideration of Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC. Obviously, in order to complete the picture so far as concerns the powers and limitations thereto of the Court of Session and the High Court, Section 439 would have to be carefully considered. And when this is done, it will at once be evident that the CrPC has placed an embargo against granting relief to an accused, (couched by us in the negative), if he is not in custody. It seems to us that any persisting ambivalence or doubt stands dispelled by the proviso to this Section, which mandates only that the Public Prosecutor should be put on notice. It seems to us that any persisting ambivalence or doubt stands dispelled by the proviso to this Section, which mandates only that the Public Prosecutor should be put on notice. We have not found any provision in the CrPC or elsewhere, nor have any been brought to our ken, curtailing the power of either of the superior Courts to entertain and decide pleas for bail. Furthermore, it is incongruent that in the face of the Magistrate being virtually disempowered to grant bail in the event of detention or arrest without warrant of any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence punishable by death or imprisonment for life, no Court is enabled to extend him succour. Like the science of physics, law also abhors the existence of a vacuum, as is adequately adumbrated by the common law maxim, viz. "where there is a right there is a remedy" . The universal right of personal liberty emblazened by Article 21 of our Constitution, being fundamental to the very existence of not only to a citizen of India but to every person, cannot be trifled with merely on a presumptive plane. We should also keep in perspective the fact that Parliament has carried out amendments to this pandect comprising Sections 437 to 439, and, therefore, predicates on the well established principles of interpretation of statutes that what is not plainly evident from their reading, was never intended to be incorporated into law. Some salient features of these provisions are that whilst Section 437 contemplates that a person has to be accused or suspect of a non-bailable offence and consequently arrested or detained without warrant, Section 439 empowers the Session Court or High Court to grant bail if such a person is in custody. The difference of language manifests the sublime differentiation in the two provisions, and, therefore, there is no justification in giving the word "custody" the same or closely similar meaning and content as arrest or detention. Furthermore, while Section 437 severally curtails the power of the Magistrate to grant bail in context of the commission of non-bailable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the two higher Courts have only the procedural requirement of giving notice of the Bail application to the Public Prosecutor, which requirement is also ignorable if circumstances so demand. Furthermore, while Section 437 severally curtails the power of the Magistrate to grant bail in context of the commission of non-bailable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the two higher Courts have only the procedural requirement of giving notice of the Bail application to the Public Prosecutor, which requirement is also ignorable if circumstances so demand. The regimes regulating the powers of the Magistrate on the one hand and the two superior Courts are decidedly and intentionally not identical, but vitally and drastically dissimilar. Indeed, the only complicity that can be contemplated is the conundrum of "Committal of cases to the Court of Session" because of a possible hiatus created by the CrPC." 21. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI , (2017) 5 SCC 218 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:- "This Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted." 22. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another , (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 23. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50, 000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Judicial Magistrate, with following conditions: (a) He shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court and he will deposit his passport with the Investigating Agency; 24. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 25. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.