Himachal Pradesh High Court
Col. Kuldeep Singh (Retd.) vs Of on 15 June, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 656 of 2016
Date of Decision : June 15 , 2016
Col. Kuldeep Singh (Retd.) ...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram: rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
1
For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
For the respondent : Mr. R. S. Verma and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht,
Addl. Advocate Generals for the
respondent/State.
Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)
ASI Brij Lal, Incharge Police Post Narkanda, is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record.
2. F.I.R. No. 51 of 2016 was registered at Police Station, Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla, H.P. on 30.5.2016, under the provisions of Sections 341, 353, 332, 506, 504 all read with Section 34 of the Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP 2Indian Penal Code. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code .
of Criminal Procedure. On 1.6.2016 this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date.
of
3. Under instructions, received from ASI Brij Lal, Incharge Police Post Narkanda, who is present in Court, it is submitted by Mr. R. S. rt Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General that petitioner has fully cooperated during investigation. Investigation is complete and custody of the petitioner is not required.
5. Having perused the record as also heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that prima facie petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all.
6. This Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during investigation. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP 3 complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the .
course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any.
of
7. Law with regard to grant of bail is now well settled. The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra rt and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694, while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, laid down the following parameters for grant of bail:-
"111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP 4 (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 .
Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour.
of
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
rt (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP 5 carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is .
implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention rt of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP 6114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the .
anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion of is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or rt refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the court of Sessions or the High Court is always available."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. The view stands reiterated by the apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
9. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus 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;::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP 7
(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;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
of
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and rt
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
10. Having taken into consideration the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show that there is reason to believe that the threat of arrest is imminent.
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the interim order dated 1.6.2016 is made absolute. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law.
Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP 8 the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. He shall not leave .
the country without the prior permission of the Court.
12. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made of herein above.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands rt disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
June 15 , 2016 (PK) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:35:07 :::HCHP