Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 655 (HP)

Jai Prakash v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-16

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 19 of 2018, dated 23.03.2018, under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC & ST Act, registered at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 23.03.2018 police received a complaint made by the complainant, wherein it is averred that petitioners Jai Prakash, who is Vice President, Gram Panchayat Bakraas and Kuldeep Singh, Teacher, used racial words against him and insulted him. The complainant has further averred that the petitioners also used force against him and mentally tortured him, whereby forcing him to resign from his job. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered against the petitioners and investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and spot map was prepared. As per the police, relevant records from Block Elementary Education Officer stands obtained and the record qua caste of the complainant also acquired. The petitioners are now joining and co-operating in the investigation. The challan will be submitted in the learned Trial Court soon. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail applications 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 petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of the offence, the applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of the offence, the applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioners are residents of the place and 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. 7. At this stage, after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioners are the residents of the place and they are joining and co-operating in the investigation. This Court also finds that by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an unlimited period no fruitful purpose will be served and the ends of justice would be met in case they are released on bail. Therefore, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, in connection with FIR No. 19 of 2018, dated 23.03.2018, under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC & ST Act, registered at Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P., be released on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25, 000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (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. (iv) In case the petitioners try to tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, the present bail will be cancelled at the instance of the prosecution. 8. (iv) In case the petitioners try to tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, the present bail will be cancelled at the instance of the prosecution. 8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti.