Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sudhanshu Kapoor vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 July, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M)'s Nos. 893-896 of 2020
Decided on July 7, 2020
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CrMP(M) No. 893 of 2020
Sudhanshu Kapoor ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
2. CrMP(M) No. 894 of 2020
Nishtha Kapoor ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
3. CrMP(M) No. 895 of 2020
Nivedita Banshtu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
4.
CrMP(M) No. 896 of 2020
Col. Kuldeep Singh Banshtu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the petitioners: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vinod Gupta
and Mr. Shivam Prashar,
Advocates.
For the respondent Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
General with Mr. Arvind Sharma,
Additional Advocate General and
Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General.
Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate,
for the complainant.
I. Shyam Tomer, PS Rampur &
ASI Krishan Lal, I/C City,
Rampur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP
2
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Bail petitioners namely Sudhanshu Kapoor, Nishtha .
Kapoor Nivedita Banshtu and Col. Kuldeep Singh Banshtu, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.438 CrPC, for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No 86, dated 11.6.2020, under Ss. 306 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Sequel to orders dated 16.6.2020 and 30.6.2020, respondent State has filed status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by investigating agency, perusal whereof reveals that on 11.6.2020, complainant, Prem Nath Sharma, who happens to be the father of the deceased, Divya Kapoor, lodged a complaint with Dy.SP. Rampur alleging therein that his daughter (deceased) has committed suicide on 9.6.2020 at 7.30 pm, after being instigated by her in-laws.
Complainant also disclosed to the Police that on the date of alleged incident, deceased had uploaded a note in the afternoon, perusal whereof reveals that she was being constantly harassed and tortured by her in-laws, as a consequence of which, she took drastic step of finishing her life by committing suicide. It emerges from the record made available to this Court that though the deceased Divya Kapoor had committed suicide on 9.6.2020 but the complaint, as ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 3 referred to above, was lodged by her father on 11.6.2020, when factum with regard to recovery of suicide note from the .
person of the deceased came to his notice. Police, on the basis of aforesaid complaint and suicide note, lodged FIR in question against the bail petitioners. After lodging of FIR, bail petitioners approached this Court in the instant petitions, filed under S.438 CrPC, praying therein for grant of interim bail.
Vide orders dated 16.6.2020, this Court, while calling for status report, enlarged all the bail petitioners on interim bail and directed them to join the investigation.
3. On 26.6.2020, learned Advocate General, while admitting factum with regard to joining of the investigation by the bail petitioners, contended that since some of the documents are not being made available by the bail petitioners, investigating agency is finding it difficult to conclude the investigation and accordingly this Court adjourned the matter for 30.6.2020, directing the bail petitioners to fully cooperate with the investigating agency. On 30.6.2020, though the investigating agency fairly admitted that pursuant to repeated directions issued by this Court, bail petitioners have been joining investigation regularly but reiterated that copy of the note allegedly uploaded by the deceased on Facebook is not being made available as such, ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 4 there bail may not be confirmed. However, this Court having heard learned senior counsel for the bail petitioners, again .
adjourned the matter for today i.e. 7.7.2020, enabling investigating agency to conclude the investigation.
4. Today, learned Advocate General, while placing on record fresh status report, contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by bail petitioners, they do not deserve any leniency rather the bail petitioners need to be dealt with severely as such, all the petitions may be rejected outrightly. While making this Court peruse the record, especially the suicide note, learned Advocate General, made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that that the deceased committed suicide after being harassed by the bail petitioners. Learned Advocate General also contended that though the bail petitioners have joined the investigation after having obtained interim bail from this Court, but, yet they are not fully cooperating with the investigating agency and are not disclosing true facts to the Police, as such, their custodial interrogation is required.
Lastly, learned Advocate General contended that since there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by investigating agency suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioners, in one way or the other, instigated the deceased to commit suicide, it ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 5 would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge them on bail.
In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Advocate .
General also placed heavy reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, and prayed that the investigating agency may be given custody of the bail petitioners enabling it to conclude the investigation.
5. Mr. B.C. Negi, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the complainant, also made similar contentions, as have been made by learned Advocate General, as such, same are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
6. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Vinod Gupta and Shivam Prashar, Advocates, while refuting aforesaid submissions made by learned Advocate General, contended that as per own status report filed by the investigating agency, nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, as such, custodial interrogation of the bail petitioners is not required. Mr. Chandel contended that as per own case of the investigating agency, son of one of the bail petitioners namely Nivedita Banshtu had handed over one note to the husband of the deceased, who further handed over the same to the deceased, meaning thereby that note, if any, given ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 6 by bail petitioners was in the custody of the deceased or her husband, as such, nothing is required to be recovered from the .
bail petitioners. While making this Court peruse the statements of husband of the deceased and maid working in the house of the deceased, Mr. Chandel strenuously argued that it stands duly established on record that depute inter se deceased and her in-laws was qua distribution of ancestral property, which is yet to be legally partitioned inter se family members. While referring to the suicide note allegedly written by the deceased, Mr. Chandel contended that since the relations between the deceased and her in-laws were strained, deceased, with a view to wreak vengeance upon the bail petitioners, committed suicide. Lastly, Mr. Chandel, contended that since all the bail petitioners are respectable members of the society and they have been fully cooperating with the investigating agency, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them for custodial interrogation, rather, such order, if any, would cause irreparable loss to the reputation of the bail petitioners.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the relations inter se deceased and her in-laws were quite strained on account of partition of the ancestral property and ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 7 in this regard, they have already filed cross-criminal cases against each other, which are pending adjudication. Though, .
in the case at hand, deceased committed suicide on 9.6.2020 at 7.30 pm, but the complaint came to be lodged by father of deceased on 11.6.2020 at around 6.00 pm after alleged recovery of suicide note by Doctors conducting post mortem upon the deceased. Though, perusal of suicide note allegedly written by the deceased prima facie suggests that the same was written on 7.6.2020, but learned Advocate General, while referring to the report of handwriting expert, contended that the same was written on 9.6.2020, however, he was unable to render specific reason, if any, for not recovering suicide note on 9.6.2020, when body was taken into custody by the investigating agency. Inquest report available on record nowhere suggests that on 9.6.2020, Police recovered suicide note, if any, from the person of the deceased. As per case of the investigating agency, some altercation took place inter se deceased and her in-laws on the date of alleged incident i.e. 9.6.2020, wherein allegedly one of bail petitioners namely Nivedita Banshtu, i.e. sister-in-law of the deceased rejected the proposal of the deceased to give her husband shop at Bhadrash and one shop below the house and also told that she (deceased) would not get anything in the property left by ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 8 father-in-law of the deceased. If the statement of husband of the deceased recorded under S.161 CrPC is read in its entirety, .
it clearly suggests that there had been frequent altercations between the deceased and her in-laws on account of partition of ancestral property. Even on the date of alleged incident, deceased alongwith her husband had gone to the house of her in-laws, wherein all the bail petitioners were present. As per statement of husband of the deceased, some alteration took place inter se bail petitioners and the deceased, but thereafter, deceased came back to her house and started weeping. If statements of husband of deceased and the maid given to the police are read in conjunction, they clearly suggest that the deceased after having come back from the house of her in-
laws, was not in a fit state of mind and she was weeping but, certainly, there is no evidence worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that after aforesaid altercation, fresh quarrel, if any, took place inter se deceased and her in-
laws. Statement of husband of the deceased reveals that he, after alleged altercation, kept on pacifying the deceased and advised her not to show aggression but since the deceased was not ready to understand, he alongwith their minor daughter, left her alone and went to in-laws of the deceased.
Husband of the deceased also disclosed to the police that after ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 9 some time, he received a telephonic call from the deceased, who, while asking him to come back, assured that she would .
not lose her temper but, it seems that before the husband could reach the house, deceased had committed suicide. If the last Whatsapp message sent by the deceased to her husband is taken into consideration, it suggests that she was upset over her being left alone in the house by the husband, after the alleged incident. Interestingly, while associating himself at the time of preparation of inquest report, husband of the deceased disclosed to the police that the deceased was taking medication for depression. Similarly, statement of the maid working in the house of the deceased though suggests that on the date of alleged incident, some altercation took place inter se deceased and her in-laws but she also, like husband of the deceased, disclosed to the Police that once deceased had come back from the house of her in-laws, no fresh quarrel took place in her presence. While placing heavy reliance upon the note allegedly uploaded by the deceased on Facebook, learned Advocate General, made an attempt to show that the deceased committed suicide after having received letter/note from her sister-in-law, wherein it was informed that deceased and her husband would not get anything in the ancestral property but, whether such note was given by her sister-in-law or the ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 10 contents thereof were sufficient to induce the deceased to commit suicide, is a question which needs to be considered .
and decided by learned trial Court in the totality of evidence to be led on record by investigating agency. Similarly, one Whatsapp message sent by deceased immediately prior to alleged incident, though suggests that the deceased was also given beatings by the persons named in the suicide note but, such allegations have not been supported by any medical evidence. To the contrary, medical evidence available on record suggests that no injury on the person of the deceased was found, save and except, injury on her neck on account of hanging.
8. No doubt, in the suicide note, deceased has written that she has committed suicide on account of maltreatment given to her by the persons named therein but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, this court finds it too premature to conclude guilt, if any, of the persons named in the suicide note, especially when there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that deceased and her in-laws were at loggerheads with each other for quite long over partition of ancestral property. Statements of witnesses adduced on record by investigating agency, nowhere compel this court to agree with the contention of learned Advocate ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 11 General that there was such a grave provocation on the part of the persons named in the suicide note, that the deceased had .
no option but to commit suicide. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by learned trial Court in the totality of facts and evidence to be led on record by the investigating agency, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter coupled with the fact that nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, this Court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioners, who otherwise have been joining the investigation regularly pursuant to the direction issued by this Court.
9. By now, it is settled law that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather, competing factors are to be balanced by a court while exercising discretion. It has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that very object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Reliance is placed upon Sanjay Candra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694, while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 12 Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 has laid down following parameters:
.
(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 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 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 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." (Emphasis supplied) ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 13
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on .
6.2.2018 has held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction r of the Investigating Officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the Investigating Officer. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that if an accused not hiding from the Investigating Officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 14
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by .
this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused r is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons."
12. Though having carefully perused the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram (supra), this Court is of the definite view that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 15 judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because, same pertains to economic offences, but even .
otherwise, Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has held that power under S.438 is an extraordinary power and same is to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted in exceptional cases. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has ruled that while considering anticipatory bail under S.438 CrPC, court is to keep in mind gravity of offence and possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors.
13. True it is that in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court, while observing that ordinarily arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes and grant of anticipatory bail, to some extent, interferes with sphere of investigation of the offence, hence, court must be circumspect, while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail. But keeping in view the facts of the case at hand, as have been discussed herein above, though the accusations appear to be grave but the sequence of events, as noticed above, nowhere discloses prima facie case, if any, against the bail petitioners, as such, this Court finds no reason to permit custodial interrogation of the bail petitioners. Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram (supra) has very cautiously noted ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 16 that the legislative intent of S.438 CrPC is to safeguard individual liberty and possibility of a person being humiliated .
by subjecting him to unnecessary police custody, but while recording aforesaid intent of the legislation, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that court must also keep in view that the criminal offences are not offences just against an individual rather, larger societal interest is at stake, as such, a delicate balance is to be struck between rights to safeguard personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
14. Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram (supra) has held as under:
"73. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303, it was held as under:-
"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There 52 may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 17
74. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory .
bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
75. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional 53 circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, the Supreme Court held as under:- "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305.)""
15. Taking cue from aforesaid observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court vis-à-vis peculiar facts and circumstances, denial of anticipatory bail would not only amount to denial of rights guaranteed to the bail petitioners under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, but definitely they would be unnecessarily humiliated and subjected to police custody, which is not required at all since nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners.::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 18
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre(supra) has categorically held that nature and gravity .
of accusation and exact role of the accused, must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that court should also consider that whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. Since investigation in the case is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to the right of investigating agency, which otherwise had been interrogating the bail petitioners since 16.6.2020, without any fail.
17. At the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that nothing, save and except, note allegedly handed over to the deceased by son of one of the bail petitioners is required to be recovered, but as has been noted herein above, that even if it is presumed that note was handed over to the deceased by the son of bail petitioner Nivedita Banshtu, before the alleged incident, it is not understood how same is recoverable from the bail petitioner, rather, same could have been in the custody of either the deceased or her husband, who at the relevant time was present in the house. As per aforesaid judgment, court is required to strike balance between individual rights and ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 19 personal liberty and right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so collected and to .
collect more information, which may further lead to recovery of relevant information. Here, on one hand, right of the investigating agency to interrogate the bail petitioners has been protected since the accused have associated themselves with the investigation and, on the other hand, individual liberty and freedom of the bail petitioners are also to be protected by this Court by granting them anticipatory bail.
18. In view of above, bail petitioners have carved out a case for themselves. Consequently, present petitions are allowed.
Orders dated 16.6.2020 are made absolute, subject to the petitioners furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
each with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate available at the station, besides 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;
(b) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP 20
(d) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
(e) They shall surrender passports, if any, held by them.
.
19. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the 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.
20. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be
21.
r to construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the petitions alone.
The petitions stand accordingly disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge July 7, 2020 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2020 20:25:28 :::HCHP