Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 699 (HP)

Mouzi Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-13

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 57 of 2019, dated 22.05.2019, under Sections 3(1)(f)(g) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered in Police Station Bhoranj District Hamirpur, 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, Shri Amar Singh (complainant) reported to the police that he is permanent resident of village Dohag and belongs to schedule caste family. As per the complainant, the petitioners, who belong to upper caste, forcibly harvested the crop sown by him. He has further alleged that the petitioners used to harass him and his family for so many years and they drove tractor on the crop of wheat shown by him. The petitioners forcibly took over the possession of khasra No. 1676/3 and destroyed the crop sown by the complainant. As per the complainant, the petitioners are quarrelsome people and quite often they quarrel with him and his family members. On the complaint, so filed by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police procured the caste certificate of the complainant and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police also procured the records qua the disputed land. It has come in the investigation that there is on going land dispute between the parties. The petitioners joined the investigation and they are co-operating in it. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners, if enlarged on bail may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners 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 police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore, the bail applications of the petitioners 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 police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. 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, and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars, so they may be enlarged on bail. He has further argued that the petitioners are very poor persons and today they could not come to the Court due to extreme poverty. The petitioners are joining the cooperating in the investigation and their custody is not at all required. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in serious offence and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so at this stage, the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so they may be enlarged on bail. He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after carefully considering the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, the nature of the offence and the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed, they are residents of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the overall aspects of the case and without discussing the same at this stage and also considering the fact that the petitioners are poor persons, this Court finds that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, as they are joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the ends of justice will only be met in case they are enlarged on bail. Thus, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 57 of 2019, dated 22.05.2019, under Sections 3(1)(f)(g) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered in Police Station Bhoranj District Hamirpur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, on the personal and surety bonds already furnished by them before the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Registry. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (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. 8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.