CRMPM/1806/2018 of PRAKASH CHAND Vs STATE OF HP on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.M.P (M) No. 1806 of 2018

Date of decision: 31.12.2018

Prakash Chand & others.

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh.

…Petitioners …Respondent

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1]

For the Petitioner:

Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Divay Raj Singh and Karan Veer Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr.R.P. Singh and Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate Generals.

ASI Surjeet Singh, I.O, Police Station Haroli, district Una, present in person along with record.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

This petition has been filed by petitioners seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 305 of 2018, dated 14.11.2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and under Section 25-54-59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P. 2. Status report stands filed and record has been produced. As per status report, brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Maya Devi had lodged a complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in Police Station, Haroli, stating therein that they are four sisters and she is in possession of ancestral land in village Lower Panjawar, which is being looked after by her, but the same is owned by all four sisters and partition proceedings with respect to it are pending. It is further reported by her that on Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 14.11.2018 at about 1:30 P.M., petitioner Prakash Chand, Ladi, Muni alias Munish Kumar, Vipin Kumar along with 2-3 persons, armed with sticks and swords came on the spot in Mahindra Tractor and Motor Cycles and started plowing her fields and when they were opposed, they attacked and injured Mahinder Pal, Amarjeet, Rajesh Kumar, Seema, Rajani, Kuldeep, Ajay Kumar and Abhishek and ran away from the spot. After registration of FIR investigation started and injured were medically examined, perusal of MLCs indicates that some of the injured persons had suffered grievous injuries also.

3. It is case of the petitioners that land stands partitioned and they were called there by the Revenue Authorities. It is further case of the petitioners that they have also received injuries in the incident and were got medically examined by the Police itself. Their MLCS have also been produced by the Investigating Officer, which indicates that Manish, Satish and Prakash Chand had also suffered simple injuries. During investigation offence under Section 351 and 354 IPC was not found to be committed and therefore, now the investigation is going on under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 324, 326, 506(2) IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Some of the petitioners are residents of Punjab also, however, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are ready to furnish local surety also, if directed to do so.

4. Petitioners had also approached learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, who has rejected their bail on the ground that opinion of doctor from PGI is still awaited and the grant of bail would give wrong signal to the society.

5. Parties are closely related to each other and it appears that the incident had taken place during the effort to continue/take the possession of the land, owned and possessed jointly by four sisters. It is informed that accused Parkash Chand is husband of Jeeto (sister of complainant), Ladi is her son and Manish and Satpal are sons of Shiv Rani, W/o Balbir Singh (also sister of complainant) and Vipin is son of Tapsya W/o Gurmeet Singh (who is also sister of complainant).

6. Petitioners have been arrested on 15[th] November, 2018 and they are now in judicial custody. The weapon of offence stands recovered from them and investigation is almost complete, except obtaining the medical opinion from the PGI with respect to treatment of Amarjeet, who has been referred to PGI by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Una. His MLC indicates that during his first medical examination two injuries have been suffered by him. One is on anterior aspect of left wrist and hand and another is abrasion upside of the lower chest 2x2 cm red. Weapon of offence used for causing injuries has been opined to be sharp.

7. In aforesaid circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the entire facts and circumstances, and nature of injuries noticed by the doctor at the first instance at the time of examining Amarjeet, I am of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose is going to be served by detaining the petitioners behind the bars pending trial and they are entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions. Some of the petitioners are residents of Punjab also. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are ready to furnish local surety also, if directed to do so.

8. Accordingly, petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 305/2018, dated 14.11.2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506(2) IPC and 25-54-59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Haroli, District, Una, H.P., if not required in any other case, on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- each with one local surety each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/JMIC, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required; police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners shall 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 such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. They shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. They shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that they shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial; investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioners shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which they are accused or suspected; the offence to which they are accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any manner; manner;

(vi) that the petitioners shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that they shall not leave the territory of India without prior information. They shall inform the Police/Court about change in address, if any, in future. information. They shall inform the Police/Court about change in address, if any, in future.

(viii) that the petitioners shall not take any corrective, unlawful, illegal steps for acquiring the possession of the land jointly owned and possessed by the parties. steps for acquiring the possession of the land jointly owned and possessed by the parties.

(ix) That the petitioners shall not resort to take forcible possession of the land in question. the land in question.

7. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioners as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

8. In case the petitioners violate any conditions imposed upon them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

9. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

10. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Copy Dasti.

31[st] December, 2018 (KRS)

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.