Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 42 (HP)

Chander Shekhar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-01-03

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for releasing him on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.26 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at Police Station, Sangla, District Kinnaur, H.P. 2. As per averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is permanent 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 prosecution story, on 29.08.2019, Shri Sachin Nadda, SDO, PWD Sangla, District Kinnaur, made a complaint to the police at Police Station, Sangla, District Kinnaur, that inaugural plaque was destroyed by someone at Bus Stand, Sangla, District Kinnaur, and action may be taken. During investigation, on 30.08.2019, on identification of the spot, some pieces of broken plaque were taken into possession, spot map was prepared, photographs were also clicked and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded. CCTV footage reveals that on 10.07.2019, a person was spotted spreading the pieces of plaque, so CD of CCTV footage was also got prepared by the police, and on identification by the witnesses, the petitioner has been identified and photocopy of the bill in respect of plaque has also been taken into possession. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the records, 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. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and gone through the records, 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. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, so he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police and also in the wake of the fact that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, so the petition be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the investigation is still going on and, moreover, he has committed a serious crime and in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that taking into the consideration the fact that the petitioner is joining and cooperating the investigation, his custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police and the petitioner has his family to support, the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. Heard. After taking into consideration the facts, particularly that the petitioner is joining and cooperating in the investigation, his custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, he is the permanent resident of the place and further he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court finds that the present is a fit case, where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.26 of 2019, dated 29.08.2019, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at Police Station, Sangla, District Kinnaur, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (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. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.