Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 703 (HP)

Pyare Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-10-08

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matter is taken up through video conference. 2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 133 of 2020, dated 24.07.2020, under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 3. 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. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, 24.07.2020, complainant, Smt. Damodri Devi, made a written complaint to the police alleging therein Pyare Ram (petitioner herein) deviously married her daughter (victim/deceased). She has further alleged that the petitioner used to give beatings and maltreat the deceased. Earlier she reported the incident of beatings given to the deceased by the petitioner to the police, but, upon the involvement of the police, the matter was amicably sorted out. On 19.07.2020 the petitioner gave beatings to the deceased and compelled her to consume poison. During her treatment in IGMC, Shimla, the deceased died. The complainant prayed that apt action be taken against the petitioner. Upon the complaint, so made by the petitioner, the police registered a case and the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, police procured postmortem report of the deceased and the petitioner was arrested. Police visited the spot of occurrence, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. During the course of investigation, the petitioner divulged that 2-3 times heated arguments were exchanged in between him and the deceased. On 19.07.2020 he slapped the deceased twice for not cleaning the kitchen properly. After this incident, the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and ultimately died. As per the police, report from RFSL Mandi is awaited and upon completion of investigation challan will be presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. After this incident, the deceased consumed some poisonous substance and ultimately died. As per the police, report from RFSL Mandi is awaited and upon completion of investigation challan will be presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. The petitioner, at this stage, in case enlarged on bail, may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so the bail application may be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 6. 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 and 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 the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when nothing remains to be recovered at his instance, his custodial investigation is not at all required by the police, so the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that there is anger in the society against the petitioner, so in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may flee from justice or may tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for further investigation, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. 8. At this stage, considering manner in the which the offence is allegedly committed by the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position to flee from justice, nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, custodial investigation of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, considering the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, considering the overall material, which has 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 petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police in case FIR No. 133 of 2020, dated 24.07.2020, under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) 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 appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (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.