Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 778 (HP)

Anil Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-01

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. 47 of 2017, dated 11.12.2017, under Section 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, registered in Police Station RamShehar, District Solan, 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he be enlarged on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the police report, police personnel intercepted a truck, bearing registration No.HP69A-2391, which was being driven by Shakti Ram son of late Shri Hari Chand. One more occupant of the truck disclosed his name as Dharmender Kumar. The said truck was loaded with resin tins, but the driver could not produce any valid document authorizing to transport resin. Total 450 resin tins were being transported and police separated resin as sample and sealed the same. The truck, alongwith its documents, was taken into possession and a case was registered. Spot map was prepared and the photographs were taken. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. It has further come in the investigation that the petitioner and Om Parkash from places Mhajwar and Odijaani loaded 155 and 295 tins of resin in the truck. As per the prosecution, the petitioner is hiding the truth. The investigation is still going on. Telephone record also shows the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. It has also come in the Police report that the petitioner is neither joining the investigation nor he is disclosing the name of his labourers nor their telephone numbers. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that as the petitioner is neither joining nor co-operating in the investigation, so his bail application may be dismissed. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner resident of Himachal Pradesh his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner resident of Himachal Pradesh his custodial interrogation is not at all required. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that by keeping the petitioner behind the bars no fruitful purpose will be served, so he may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General on his instructions from Investigating Officer, he has stated that the resin tins belongs to the petitioner and the investigation is still going on. He has further argued that in case, the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner has committed a serious offence and he is not co-operating in the investigation, thus, it has been prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police record in detail. 7. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that as the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation and recoveries are still to be effected and the truck in question was found at Swarghat, which is away and towards adjoining the States and depot was at Bilaspur, approximately 30-40 KM behind. So, this Court finds that in case, the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper with prosecution evidence and there is every likelihood that the petitioner will flee from justice. Further, the investigation against the petitioner is still going on. Therefore, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. The petition, which sans merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.