Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 563 (HP)

Gorkhu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-09-04

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 seeking his release, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.234 of 2020, dated 24.7.2020, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He 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 the prosecution story, Deputy Conservator of Forest Chamba, Forest Division Chamba, made a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Chamba, wherein he has alleged that Gorkhu Ram (petitioner herein), Forest Guard, presently Incharge Tiryoni Beat of Upper Chamba Range, has produced 12th Class mark sheet to his office on 11.3.2019, through Range Forest Officer, Upper Chamba. The matter regarding verification of 12th Class Certificate submitted by the petitioner was taken up with the Director, National Institute of Open Schooling, Noida, Utter Pradesh, and as per their records, Roll number 060037951745, the data does not exist in their records and the said document sent by his office for the verification is not genuine and seems to be fake. The petitioner has given a 12th Class Certificate for the benefit of promotion in his office. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police made the relevant recoveries, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence, and there is every possibility that in case at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through 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 State and gone through the police report carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has further argued that 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. She has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, nothing is to be recovered from him. She has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, so the bail application be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as he is permanent resident of the place. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, so the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, he is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place, his custody is not at all required by the police, nothing remains to be recovered at his instance, investigation is complete, considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed 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 petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, be released on bail, in this case FIR No. 234 of 2020, dated 24.7.2020, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 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. 9. 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. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.