Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1585 (HP)

Vijay v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-10-24

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 97 of 2019, dated 07.05.2019, under Sections 307, 498A, 354, 355, 323, 325, 182, 186, 189, 190, 195A, 203 and 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 07.05.2019 Smt. Kiran (complainant), who is wife of the petitioner, got recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She stated that she is married to the petitioner in the year 2008, but after some days of marriage the petitioner started ill treating the complainant physically as well as mentally. As per the complainant, the petitioner used to pressurize her to give false information to the police and when she refused the petitioner overpowered her cut her hair with razor and gave her severe beatings with stick. The petitioner also tore her clothes and also threatened to kill her. The petitioner told her to cook up a false story before the police and in the morning he took her clothes off and videographed her. The petitioner sent the video to SHO, so the police visited her house. As per the police, petitioner often picks up quarrel with the neighbourers and the petitioner used to make false complaints against them. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation commenced. The complainant and the petitioner were also medically examined by the police. During the course of investigation, police found that the petitioner has installed a CCTV camera in his room, so CCTV footage was procured. The CCTV footage revealed that initially the petitioner overpowered the complainant, cut her hair and gave her severe beatings with stick. Police made the relevant recoveries and on 07.05.2019 the petitioner was arrested. During the course of investigation, police found that the petitioner has installed a CCTV camera in his room, so CCTV footage was procured. The CCTV footage revealed that initially the petitioner overpowered the complainant, cut her hair and gave her severe beatings with stick. Police made the relevant recoveries and on 07.05.2019 the petitioner was arrested. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per the medical opinion, the injuries caused with stick could have caused the death of the complainant. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner used to report falsely to the police and it was also found that the petitioner wanted to rope in the police in some serious crime. The petitioner made 15 telephonic calls on the landline number of Police Station, Sadar Shimla, and thereby caused hindrance in official duty of Constable Sandeep Kumar. As per the police, the petitioner is habitual offender and on 30.07.2019 he made telephonic call from Kaithu Jail to the complainant and threatened to eliminate her. The complainant reported the matter and qua this incident FIR No. 160 of 2019, dated 01.08.2019, under Section 506 IPC, Police Station Sadar Shimla, was registered. Many criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner is habitual offender and many cases have been registered against him. There is anger in the nearby area and in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is threat to his life, as the petitioner picks up quarrel with the people of the area and on 19.03.2019, by making indecent remarks and using abusive language, he picked up quarrel with the people of the area. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his 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 report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that petitioner is resident 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 the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is habitual offender and many cases have been registered against him. He has further argued that there is anger in the nearby area and in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is threat to his life, as petitioner often picks up quarrel with the people of the area and on 19.03.2019, by making indecent remarks and using abusive language, he picked up quarrel with the people of the area. He has argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, if so granted, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, so this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 97 of 2019, dated 07.05.2019, under Sections 307, 498A, 354, 355, 323, 325, 182, 186, 189, 190, 195A, 203 and 506 IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.