CRMPM/1029/2017 of ASHOK KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP on 28 December 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031 and 1116 of 2017

Decided on: 28.12.2017

__________________________________________________________________1.Cr.MP(M) No. 1029 of 2017Ashok Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent __________________________________________________________________ 2.Cr.MP(M) No. 1030 of 2017Ashwani Kumar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent 3.Cr.MP(M) No. 1031 of 2017Meena Devi ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent 4.Cr.MP(M) No. 1116 of 2017Brij Bala ………..Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……….Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? [1]For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

__________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioners for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 96/17 dated 26.7.2017, under Sections 306, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P.

2. Sequel to order(s) dated 2.8.2017 and 23.8.2017, Inspector Hari Singh, Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., has come present along with records. Record perused and returned. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating agency, perusal whereof suggests that all the bail petitioners have joined the investigation and nothing is required to be recovered from them.

3. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly stated that investigation in the case is almost complete save and except report of the handwriting expert, which is yet to be received. Learned Deputy Advocate General further contended that pursuant to orders passed by this Court from time to time, the bail petitioners have joined the investigation and at this stage, their custodial interrogation is not required and they can be ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to condition that they shall make themselves available for investigation as well as trial as and when called by the investigating agency.

4. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

6. Consequently, in view of the above, order(s) dated 2.8.2017

and 23.8.2017, passed by this Court, are made absolute, subject to the following conditions:

a.They shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b.They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

c.They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d.They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. the Court.

7. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

8. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone.

The bail petition(s) stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy dasti.

28[th] December, 2017 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge