CRMPM/1315/2008 of RAVINDER ALIAS KHALBALI Vs STATE on 26 December 2008

26.12.2008 Present: Mr. Harsh Khanna, counsel for the petitioner Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.

This order shall dispose of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in FIR No. 106/2008 dated 16.8.2008, Police Station Jhakri, District Shimla, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307 and 323 I.P.C.

A notice of the application was issued to learned Deputy Advocate General.

I have heard Mr. Harsh Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is similar to that of several other petitioners involved in the case who were released on bail by this Court vide its order dated 11.12.2008 and as the case of the petitioner is covered similarly, he is also entitled to the grant of bail.

I have gone through the record of the police as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.12.2008 in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2008, decided on 11.12.2008. A perusal of this order shows that the learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the case of the various petitioners who applied for bail in this very case. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that accused Rajesh Khanna and Joginder Singh @ Chuhru were identified and their names appeared in the statement of the complainant recorded on 16.8.2008. The names of the other petitioners/accused appeared in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of other witnesses, namely Charan Dass and Ved Vyas etc. recorded on 5.9.2008 to connect them with the alleged offences. It is clear from a perusal of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge that he had declined to grant the bail to accused Rajesh Khanna and Joginder Singh alias Chuhru in that case, since their names figured in the first statement made by the complainant Mehar Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. However, the remaining petitioners/accused in that case were granted bail by the learned Judge taking their case on a separate footing since their names were stated by the complainant only in his supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is clear that the name of the petitioner also appears alongwith other persons mentioned in the subsequent statement of complainant Mehar Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Once the bail had been granted to the co-petitioners on the similar grounds that their names appeared only in the subsequent statement and as they have been bailed out by the Court, the case of the petitioner cannot be taken differently and he is also accordingly entitled to the grant of bail on the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in its order.

In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail and the bail is granted on the same terms and conditions as per the order passed in the earlier case i.e. on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,00/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Rampur and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner shall:-

(i) not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner;

(ii) present himself in the Court as and when required so to do;

(iii) 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 from disclosing the truth to the Investigating Officer or to the Court. promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the truth to the Investigating Officer or to the Court.

In view of the above, the application stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy dasti.

December 26, 2008

(BSS)

( V.K. Ahuja ), J.