Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 598 (HP)

Raju Verma v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-20

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. 210 of 2015, dated 28.05.2015, under Sections 436, 427, 506 and 201 IPC, registered in Police Station Dhalli, 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 28.05.2015, Shri Kuldeep Thakur (complainant) reported to the police that he runs a grocery shop and restaurant at Shanaan. The complainant further averred that on 27.05.2015 the petitioner broke the shutter of his shop and set ablaze the shop and electricity meter. The local people somehow managed to extinguish the fire. On the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. Police made the relevant recoveries and scientific samples were sent for analysis to SFSL, Junga. The petitioner, in order to avoid his arrest, fled away, so he was declared proclaimed offender on 28.06.2016 and on 05.04.2019 he was arrested. As per the police, supplementary challan stands presented in the Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and after committing the offence he intentionally evaded his arrest and in case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 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. It has been further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and after commission of the offence, for a considerable time, he evaded his arrest, so in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It has been argued that the bail application of the petitioner may 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. He has further argued 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, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the facts that the investigation in the case in hand is complete, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, 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, the petitioner is behind the bars and considering all other material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the ends of justice would only be met in case the petitioner is released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 210 of 2015, dated 28.05.2015, under Sections 436, 427, 506 and 201 IPC, registered in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five 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.