Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 808 (HP)

Anupam Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-06

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner for the following relief : "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the judgment dated 26.5.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr. MP (M) No.613 of 2020, may kindly be modified and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to discharge her official duties by attending her office on such terms and conditions as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. As per the petitioner, this Court granted her bail, in a petition maintained, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure, vide judgment dated 26.5.2020, passed in Cr. MP (M) No.613 of 2020, with 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. (iv) That the petitioners will not personally or through their agents/representatives visit Manav Bharati University, Solan, or any other office or institution run/managed/controlled by Raj Kumar Rana or any of his family members." 3. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in other similar bail petition(s), by co-accused, no such condition was imposed. He has further argued that as the petitioner is looking after the work of University, she has to visit the said University, in connection with her work, so the present application may be allowed and the conditions may be modified. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that this Court has no power to review its judgment passed in a criminal proceedings, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has argued that if the petitioner is allowed to visit the University or near any place to it, she may tamper/hamper the prosecution evidence and since the instant case is based upon the documentary evidence only, the prayer of the petitioner is not required to be accepted. He has argued that if the petitioner is allowed to visit the University or near any place to it, she may tamper/hamper the prosecution evidence and since the instant case is based upon the documentary evidence only, the prayer of the petitioner is not required to be accepted. He has further argued that as per Annexure R-1, the petitioner being Deputy Registrar of the University, has to manage the affairs of the University and, in these circumstances also, the petitioner cannot be allowed to visit the University or near any place to it and the present application maintained by her for modification of certain bail conditions is required to be dismissed. 4. In rebuttal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is yet an employee of the University and she has to lookafter many affairs of the University from time to time, in case she is not allowed to visit/enter the premises of the University, the entire working of the University will be hampered. 5. In the present case, the investigation is still going on and the case of the prosecution is merely based upon the documents and in these circumstances, in case the petitioner is allowed to visit the University or any place near to it, she will tamper/hamper the prosecution evidence and the purpose of the bail is not to allow any person to tamper/hamper the prosecution evidence. The present petitioner was, though granted bail, however, subject to the condition that she cannot be allowed to visit the University or any other place near to it, as in that event she may tamper/hamper the prosecution evidence and this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to alter or change the same in any manner whatsoever, as the same will not be in the interest of justice. Now coming to the arguments of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in other similar bail petition, such condition was not imposed, is not having bearing in the present case, as the petitioner is a Principal Officer and she is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, being documentary evidence. In these circumstances, this Court in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, does not find any force in the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 6. In these circumstances, this Court in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, does not find any force in the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the present application, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed.