Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1187 (HP)

Suraj v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-08-20

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
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. 135 of 2019, dated 01.07.2019, under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 506 IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar, Shimla, District, Shimla, 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 01.07.2019 Shri Vikas (complainant) got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with the police. As per his statement, on 30.06.2019, at about 10:30 p.m., when he came to Cart Road for icecream, the petitioner was standing there with accused Karan. The petitioner and accused Karan stopped and gave threatening to him. Thereafter scuffle ensued and on hearing the screams of the complainant, his younger brother, namely Vikrant, came on the spot. On seeing this, the petitioner and accused Karan fled away from the spot, but subsequently they returned with accused persons Raju, Rahul, Vikki and Vinod. The petitioner and other accused persons were having chopper and beer bottles in their hands and they started thrashing the complainant and his younger brother. Accused Vikki administered a chopper blow on his head, so he sustained injuries. The complainant further stated that the accused persons also severely thrashed his younger brother and with an intention to kill him they threw him from the road. On the basis of the statement, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The complainant and his younger brother were medically examined. Police prepared the site plan and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 01.07.2019, at about 11:00 p.m., accused persons Vikki, Vinod, Rajinder, Rahul and Karan were arrested. During the course of investigation accused persons divulged that they did not have chopper and instead complainant Vikas administered a tile blow on Vikki, so he sustained injuries. It has come in the police investigation that there is rivalry between the parties. On 01.07.2019, at about 11:00 p.m., accused persons Vikki, Vinod, Rajinder, Rahul and Karan were arrested. During the course of investigation accused persons divulged that they did not have chopper and instead complainant Vikas administered a tile blow on Vikki, so he sustained injuries. It has come in the police investigation that there is rivalry between the parties. Police procured the CCTV footage from the nearby shop, which clearly shows that none of the accused persons had sword, chopper etc. The witnesses also stated that none of the persons had weapons like sword, chopper etc. One of the witness stated that the quarreling persons had glass beer bottles, pieces of tiles and they were giving beatings with leg and fist blows. It has further come in the investigation that, as the place is busy, someone could have cleaned tiles, bottles of beer etc. from the spot. The learned Trial Court on 16.07.2019 enlarged accused Rahul and Karan on bail and bail applications of rest of the accused persons were dismissed. Police found the involvement of the petitioner in six other matters, which mainly are of giving beatings to people. Initially, the petitioner absconded and on 05.08.2019 he moved an application before this Hon'ble High Court for pre arrest bail. On 19.08.2019 the petitioner was arrested and released on bail on his furnishing persons and surety bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each. As per the police, the investigation in the case stands completed. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as after committing the crime the petitioner absconded and during he course of investigation police found the involvement of the petitioner in six other cases. The petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place. He has further argued that petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, as he was found involved in other cases as well. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioner may not be released on bail and his application be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the age of the petitioner, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have taken place, investigation in the case is complete, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, the petitioner is resident of the place and is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner is joining and co- operating in the investigation and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 135 of 2019, dated 01.07.2019, under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 506 IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar, Shimla, District, Shimla, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner 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.