Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 446 (HP)

Subhash v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-07-17

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matters are taken up through video conference. 2. The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 29 of 2020, dated 29.06.2020, under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Nankhari, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 3. 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 sending them behind the bars, so they be released on bail. 4. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as it emanates from the records, is that on 29.06.2020, at about 12:50 a.m. Shri Karam Singh Mehta (complainant) made a written complaint to the police wherein he alleged that on 28.06.2020 he was in a marriage ceremony in his neighborhood and at about 12:30 a.m., when he was returning home, Balwant and Subhash (petitioners herein) thrashed him with stick and stone. As per the complainant, at that time he was being accompanied by Shri Amrit Singh. The complainant was rescued by Shri Amrit Singh and others. On the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. The complainant was medically examined. Police visited the spot of occurrence, prepared the spot map and also photographed the spot. As per the police, upon the orders of the Hon'ble Court, both the petitioners joined the investigation. Investigation in the case is complete and challan will be presented in the Court soon. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were found involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice. The petitioners can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so their bail applications be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 6. The petitioners can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so their bail applications be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioners are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, as they have joined the and co-operating with the police, nothing is to be recovered from them and the investigation is complete. He has argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police and they are joining and co-operating with the police, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as they are permanent residents of the place. The petitioners have joined the investigation and they are co-operating with the police, investigation in the matter is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners and their custody is not at all required by the police, so the petitions may be allowed and the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 8. The petitioners have joined the investigation and they are co-operating with the police, investigation in the matter is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners and their custody is not at all required by the police, so the petitions may be allowed and the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the facts that the petitioners are the residents of the place, they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners, custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, petitioners have joined the investigation, which is now complete, and co-operating with the police, considering the nature of the offence and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, 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. 29 of 2020, dated 29.06.2020, under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Nankhari, District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. 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. 9. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti.