Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1493 (HP)

Praveen Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-10-03

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been maintained by the petitioner(s) for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 149/2019, dated 07.09.2019, under Sections 452, 323, 382 and 506, read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present cases. Further, they are resident 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 released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 07.09.2019, Shri Mahesh Dutt (complainant) got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with the police. As per the statement of the complainant, who is a salesman at county made and foreign liquor vend Jamni, on 06.09.2019, around 09:00 p.m., when he closed the liquor vend and went to the nearby hotel for taking dinner, the petitioners met him there and instigated him. At about 09:30 p.m., when he returned to the liquor vend after taking dinner and was counting cash, the petitioner came to the shop and starting beating him, they also took 18,000/- to 20,000/- cash from the cash counter. Consequently, FIR No. 149/2019, dated 07.09.2019, under Sections 452, 323, 382 and 506, read with Section 34 IPC, came to be registered against the petitioners. Hence, the present bail applications. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are resident of Himachal Pradesh. She has further argued that petitioner are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so they may be released on bail. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioners may not be released on bail and their applications be dismissed. 6. She has further argued that petitioner are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so they may be released on bail. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioners may not be released on bail and their applications be dismissed. 6. At this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, the petitioners are resident of the place and are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice 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 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. 149/2019, dated 07.09.2019, under Sections 452, 323, 382 and 506, read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., on their furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each, with one surety in the like amount (each) 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. 7. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.