Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 85 (HP)

Sunil Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2020-01-07

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 case FIR No. 100 of 2019, dated 28.12.2019, under Sections 353, 323 and 325 IPC, registered at Police Post Chail, Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. 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 sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 28.12.2019 police were informed from Primary Health Centre, Chail, that a person has been brought there, who has received injuries in a quarrel. A police team rushed to Primary Health Centre, Chail, where one Shri Sehajpal (complainant) was brought for treatment. Police recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per the complainant, he works as Conductor in Punjab Roadways and on 28.12.2019, at about 11:00 p.m., they started their journey from Patiala to Chail. At about 6:15 p.m. the bus reached Chail and one person, who often remains inebriated, started arguing with him. The complainant has further stated that said person stood in front of the bus and started pelting stones. He gave beatings to the complainant with stick and stones and also abused him. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police recovered the blood stained handkerchief of the complainant and prepared the spot map. On 04.01.2020 the petitioner (Sunil Kumar) joined the investigation. As per the police, the matter is being investigated and the stick, got recovered by the petitioner, is yet to be identified by the complainant. Medico legal certificate of the complainant is also to be obtained. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. The matter is being investigated by the police and there is possibility that in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. The matter is being investigated by the police and there is possibility that in case at this stage if 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 State and gone through the record, 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 and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted by this Hon'ble Court, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that interrogation and investigation from the petitioner is yet to be conducted, so at this stage, in case 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 the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. His custodial interrogation is not at all required, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the nature of the offence, the custody of the petitioner will not serve any fruitful purpose, 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, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 100 of 2019, dated 28.12.2019, under Sections 353, 323 and 325 IPC, registered at Police Post Chail, Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.