CRMPM/1795/2015 on 30 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CrMP(M). No. 1795 of 2015.

Date of decision: 30th December, 2015.

Sh. Harinder.

……..…. Petitioner.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh.

………….Respondent.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. D.S. Nainta and Mr. Virender Verma,

Addl. Advocate Generals.

ASI Jai Dev, I/O Police Station, Kala Amb,

District Sirmour in person.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

Petitioner is one of the accused in FIR No. 6/14, registered under Sections 407, 420, 468, 471, 411 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 7.2.2014 in Police Station Kala Amb. District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. His co-accused are Krishan, Vijay Kumar, Harender Singh, Sanjay @ Sonu and one Mahavir Prashad. His co-accused Sanjay @

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

Sonu and Mahavir Prasad were arrested by the police and have since been released on bail by Learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan.

2. The petitioner-accused could only be arrested in this case on 11.8.2015 i.e. after a period over one year. He has been interrogated and is presently confined in judicial custody. The police has filed the challan in the Court. The petitioner-accused, no doubt, is now no more required for further interrogation. However the objection is that he belongs to the State of Haryana and in the event of released on bail may abscond and not available at the time of trial. Also that his co-accused Krishan and Vijay could not be arrested so far despite every efforts made by the police. The truck used by the accused persons for the commission of the offence could also not be recovered despite the petitioner-accused, who happens to be its driver, has been interrogated at length.

3. The conduct of the petitioner-accused who after registration of the case absconded and could only be arrested after a period over one year reveals that he may even abscond now also if admitted on bail and will not be available at the time of the trial as he being resident of the State of Haryana is an outsider. The manner in which the offence has been committed by the petitioner-accused and his co-accused who are still absconding reveals that the offence has been committed in a planned

manner. He was the driver of the truck. However, despite his interrogation the truck could not be traced out meaning thereby that his co-accused Krishan and Vijay may have hide the truck some where or were plying the same under some fictitious number at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, the objection that to admit the petitioner-accused on bail before the arrest of his co-accused and recovery of the truck used in the commission of offence would hamper the investigation carry substance. Therefore, at this stage no case for admitting the petitioner-accused on bail is made out. The application is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary),

Judge.

December 30, 2015,

(vs)