Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 752 (HP)

Meena Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-21

ANOOP CHITKARA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. 1. The present petition is under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking ad-interim as well regular bail in FIR No. 98 of 2019, dated 29.4.2019, registered in Police Station, Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. ASI, Ramesh Kumar, I/O. - Police Station Haroli, Distt. Una, H.P. was present on the last date, when the matter was heard. He had filed the police report and had also brought the police file. I have seen the status report as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same stands returned to the police official. Status report was also taken on record. 3. On 11.6.2019, this Court passed an interim order, directing the petitioner to be enlarged on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- to the satisfaction of any of the Registrar/Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar of this Court, subject to her complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. 4. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is as follows: (a) That on 29.4.2019 a written complaint was made to the SHO Haroli, Distt. Una by the complainant Smt. Mahinder Kaur. She alleged therein that the complainant and her son Naresh Kumar are residents of village Kugrat. (b) That on the same day i.e. 29.4.2019 at about 9.30 a.m. accused Smt. Matto (bail petitioner Meena Kumari) attacked them with wooden stick and called them by name of caste. (c) She further stated in her complaint that they had to take first aid and the injuries on their heads were stitched. (f) Hence F.I.R. under Sections 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. Status report also perused. 6. It has been admitted in the status report that the petitioner has joined the investigation as she was directed by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. Status report also perused. 6. It has been admitted in the status report that the petitioner has joined the investigation as she was directed by this Court. It has further been submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the bail petitioner. Also in the status report there is no mention of any previous criminal history of the bail petitioner. The petitioner is a lady and both she and the complainant are neighbours. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the memo of parties. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner can always be secured. I am satisfied that the no purpose will be served if the bail petitioner is sent to judicial custody. 7. At this stage, reference is being made to Section 437 Cr.P.C. where the Legislature has mandated that the provisions of bail for woman are not stringent. 8. In the result the present petition is allowed. Interim order dated 11.6.2019 is made absolute subject to further following conditions: (a) The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. It shall be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner as and when he feels such a necessity. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed to do so. However, whenever the" investigation takes place within the boundaries of the Police Station or Police Post, then the Petitioner shall not be called before 9 A.M. and shall be let off before 5 p.m. (b) The Petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever. (c) The petitioner undertakes not to threaten or browbeat the complainant or to use any pressure tactics. (d) The Petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (e) The Petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. (d) The Petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. (e) The Petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. (f) In case the of the launching of the prosecution, the petitioner undertakes to attend the trial and to appear before the Court which issues the summons or warrants and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court. 9. 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. Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.