Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 783 (HP)

Asha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-26

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. 3 (1) (s) of SC& ST Act read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Haroli, District Una, 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 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 for an unlimited period, so they be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 24.04.2019 police received a complaint from complainant, Smt. Chaand Rani. The complainant alleged that on 23.04.2019, when she was working in Deepak Fastner Limited Company, the petitioners and one Kamlesh came and asked her that why she did not participate in factory strike. The complainant tried to leave to her home, but the above women restrained her and used casteist remarks. The petitioners and co-accused Kamlesh insulted the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and investigation ensued. Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police also obtained records qua the caste of the complainant. On 21.06.2019 the petitioners joined the investigation and they were arrested. The petitioners were medically examined. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and in case at this stage they are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioners willingly joined the investigation and they are co-operating in it. The petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioners willingly joined the investigation and they are co-operating in it. The petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. The petitioners are ladies and their custodial interrogation is not required, as they are co-operating in the investigation. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the 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. It has been argued that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they may be released on bail. 7. At this stage, after taking into consideration the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the nature of the offence, considering the fact that the petitioners are ladies and they have willingly joined the investigation, the age of the petitioners, the fact that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and 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 petitioners are released on bail. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, who have been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 3 (1) (s) of SC & ST Act read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una, District Una, H.P. 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.