Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1990 (HP)

Manoj Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-12-20

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. 184 of 2019, dated 09.11.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 454, 455, 435, 354, 355, 427, 504, 506, 508, 323, 500, 380, 201, 120- B IPC, registered in Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, 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 permanent resident of District Bilaspur 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 09.11.2019 complainant, Shri Ajay Kumar, made a complaint to the police and alleged that his mother-in-law (hereinafter referred to as "the victim") has only two daughters and no son. On 17.10.2019 the villagers harassed the victim and on 29.10.2019 the villagers rushed to the house of the victim and set ablaze the house-hold goods. On 06.11.2019 the victim alongwith her daughter (sister-in-law of the complainant) visited her house and they were beaten. The face of the victim was coated with soot, she was garlanded with shoes and episode was videographed. Later on, the video of the victim was uploaded on social media. Amongst other villagers, who have been indicted, the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. Relevant recoveries were made and the scientific samples collected from the spot were sent for analysis. The victim was medically examined. In total 24 villagers were indicted and they were arrested on different dates. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that the age of the victim is 71 years and she used to proclaim herself as an oracle of Mahunaag deity. The main accused in the commission of the offence is Nisha Kumari and the accused-villagers, including the petitioner, broke open the doors and threw all the articles, including idols of worship. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that the age of the victim is 71 years and she used to proclaim herself as an oracle of Mahunaag deity. The main accused in the commission of the offence is Nisha Kumari and the accused-villagers, including the petitioner, broke open the doors and threw all the articles, including idols of worship. The articles were set ablaze, the face of the victim was coated with soot, she was garlanded with shoes and incident was videographed. As per the police, the victim and her family is under police protection, there is anger in the society against the accused persons. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious crime. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned vice counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned vice counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of District Bilaspur 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, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned vice counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when some of the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and in the wake of the fact that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for further investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that some of the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, the age of the petitioner, who is only 27 years old, the petitioner is permanent resident of District Bilaspur and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the overall material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, and also the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, 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. 184 of 2019, dated 09.11.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 454, 455, 435, 354, 355, 427, 504, 506, 508, 323, 500, 380, 201, 120-B IPC, registered in Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty 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 shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. 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 shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. He will co-operate in the investigation and will not hamper the investigation; (iii) The petitioner shall undertake not to threaten or browbeat or use any pressure tactics on the victims, complainant and the witnesses; (iv) 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; (v) In case the petitioner commits any offence prescribing the sentence of imprisonment of more than three years, within thirty days of knowledge of such FIR, the petitioner shall intimate SHO of the present police station, with all the details of the present FIR as well as the new FIR. In such a situation, it shall be open for the State to apply to this Court for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper; (vi) Within 30 days from today, the petitioner shall sell, or surrender, all firearms along with ammunition, and arms licenses, if any, to the authority which had given such permission; & (vii) The petitioner shall not enter within a radius of five kilometers of the residence of both the victims, measuring from the shortest route, until the recording of the statements of all witnesses, except Police Officials, during trial. In case the petitioner needs modification of this condition, then he may apply to this Court, supported with written permission from the victim, obtained through Pradhan, Up Pradhan, or Ward member of the Panchayat, where the victim resides. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 9. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to have expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be determined and adjudicated on its own. Copy dasti.