Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 223 (HP)

Ankush Verma v. State Of H. P.

2019-03-05

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - All these petitions arise out of a common FIR, hence are liable to be disposed, of, by a common order. 2. The instant petitions, have been filed by bail applicants/accused, under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure , for seeking, an order, for theirs being released from judicial custody, whereat they are extantly lodged, for, their allegedly committing offence(s), punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, of the Indian Penal Code, and, Section 3 (2) (Va) of Prevention of Atrocities Act , in respect whereof, an FIR No. 14 of 2019, of, 29.1.2019, is, registered with Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Sh. Dinesh Kumar, is present in the Court, and, has apprised this Court, that, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, has remanded the bailapplicants/accused to judicial custody. He further submits that the investigation is almost complete, and, all the relevant recoveries also stand effectuated at the instance of the bailapplicants/accused. He also states that the condition of the victim is stable, and, he faces no imminent danger to his life. Though, in the face of afore submission made by the Investigating Officer concerned, before this Court, the Court is constrained to grant the indulgence of bail to the bailapplicants, yet, the learned Additional Advocate General, has, vehemently opposed the grant of indulgence of bail to the bailapplicants/accused, (i) given the likelihood of bailapplicants/accused influencing the prosecution witnesses, and, also qua the likelihood of bailapplicants/accused, hence, tampering with prosecution evidence. He also proceeds to submit that the given, the, prior hitherto, penal offences standing evidently committed by applicant/accused one Ishwar Thakur, hence there is every possibility of his recommitting penal offence(s), thereupon indulgence of bail be not granted to the afore bailapplicants/ accused. 4. However, the afore submission made before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General is not at this stage supported by any tangible or credible material, hence the same is rejected. 4. However, the afore submission made before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General is not at this stage supported by any tangible or credible material, hence the same is rejected. Even, if, one of the bailapplicants prior hereto, has evidently committed penal offence(s), yet, it may not constrain this Court to decline relief qua him, given, the, mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein it stands enshrined, qua, strict/stringent conditions, being rather imposable upon him, by this Court, hence for obviating, the, factum of the afore bail applicant, rather fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses, (i) thereupon, in consonance therewith, imposition of stringent conditions, would also hence mitigate as well as allay, the, apprehension of the State, that, given his previous repeated indulgences in criminal activities, thereupon, upon, his being granted bail, would rather facilitate abusing his bail, and, also his reindulging in criminal activities. Consequently, this Court is constrained to accord the facility of bail to the bailapplicants/accused, however, subject to the following conditions, and, if any condition is infringed, it shall facilitate the respondent to move this Court for cancellation of bail. i) That they shall furnish personal bond, comprised in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ each with two local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial trial Judge. ii) That the bail applicants shall join the investigation, as and when required by the investigating agency; iii) That they shall not directly or indirectly advance any threat, inducement or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; iv) That they shall not leave India without the permission of the Court. v) That they shall deposit their passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned; vi) That in case of reindulgence of the bail applicants in criminal activities, it shall be open to the State to move for the cancellation of the bail. vii) That in case an intimation is received by the State that the bail applicants are influencing the witnesses, then it shall be open for the state for apply for cancellation of the bail. 5. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. vii) That in case an intimation is received by the State that the bail applicants are influencing the witnesses, then it shall be open for the state for apply for cancellation of the bail. 5. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Dasti Copy.