Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 597 (HP)

Bittu v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-20

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail applications have been moved by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No.63 of 2019, dated 16.04.2019, under Sections 379 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 32 and 33 of Indian Forest Act, registered in Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents 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 16.04.2019, police received a complaint from Ms. Jyoti, Forest Guard, Sandhu Beat, through Forest Range Officer, Theog. It was contended in the complaint that on 15.04.2019 at about 04:00 p.m. Ms. Jyoti and another Forest Guard Sh. Amit Dharma were patrolling at Majhogra, near a nallah, they heard the noise of cutting of wood. The Forest Guards were accompanied by some local people and they saw the petitioners illegally cutting the forest wood. The petitioners managed to escape from the spot. The Forest Guards found two mobile phones on the spot, which were taken into possession. The Forest Wood was taken into possession and other codal formalities were completed. On the basis of the complaint, police registered a case and investigation ensued. Police visited the spot and prepared the spot map. The spot was also photographed. Police took into possession the forest wood and also the mobile phones. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per the police, the petitioners are evading their arrest. On 05.05.2019 the petitioner joined the investigation. Police made recoveries at the instance of the petitioners. As per the police, investigation in the case is still going on. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and they also tried to evade their arrest, so in case they are enlarged on bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and may also flee from justice, so the applications may be dismissed. 4. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and they also tried to evade their arrest, so in case they are enlarged on bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the evidence and may also flee from justice, so the applications may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the report of the police, 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 residents of the place, so they may be released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that at this stage the petitioners may not be released on bail and their applications be dismissed. 6. At this stage, considering the facts that recoveries have been effected by the police, the petitioners are residents of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also considering the all other material, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage coupled with the fact that the petitioners are joining the investigation, 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, in case FIR No.63 of 2019, dated 16.04.2019, under Sections 379 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 32 and 33 of Indian Forest Act, registered in Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount 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. 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.