Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sandeep Singh Son Of Jagdish Singh vs Non- Applicant on 5 May, 2015

Author: P.S.Rana

Bench: P.S.Rana

                                              1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH




                                                                          .
                              SHIMLA:





                                               Cr.MP(M) No. 373 of 2015.

                                               Order reserved on: 1.5.2015.





                                               Date of Order: May 5,2015.


    Sandeep Singh son of Jagdish Singh.                           .....Applicant.




    State of Himachal Pradesh.

                                       Versus:



                                                            .......Non- applicant.

    Coram:

    The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Rana, Judge.


    Whether approved for Reporting?1yes.

    For the applicant:                 Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate.




    For non-applicant .                Mr. M.L.Chauhan, Addl. Advocate
                                       General.





    P.S.Rana, Judge.





    ORDER:

Present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No.180 of 2014 dated 27.9.2014 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 2

registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal .

Code at Police Station Jawalamukhi District Kangra Himachal Pradesh.

2. It is pleaded that investigation of the present case is completed and recovery has been effected. It is further pleaded that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and he is innocent. It is further pleaded that applicant will not induce or threat prosecution witness in any manner and will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Prayer for acceptance of bail application sought.

3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 180 of 2014 dated 27.9.2014 registered under Sections 457 and 380 IPC at Police Station Jawalamukhi District Kangra HP. There is recital in police report that statement of co-accused Jitender Singh was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and as per disclosure statement of co-accused Jitender Singh site plan of location was prepared where cash chest of ATM machine was kept.

There is further recital in police report that broken locks of shutter which were thrown in the bushes by accused persons ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 3 were also recovered as per disclosure statement given by co-

.

accused Jitender Singh. There is further recital in police report that one CD and bank statement dated 26.9.2014 and statement of cash kept in the ATM machine also took into possession vide seizure memo. There is further recital in police report that on dated 26.9.2014 the ATM machine kept by PNB Bank Kaloh Tehsil Rukker District Kangra HP was broken and Rs.6,24,200/-(Six lac twenty four thousand two hundred) was stolen from cash chest of ATM machine by accused persons. There is further recital in police report that one spray bottle, cash chest of ATM machine and cash to the tune of Rs.5,97,700/- (Five lac ninety seven thousand seven hundred) and car having registration No. HR-51E-6011 were also took into possession vide seizure memo. There is further recital in police report that investigation is complete and challan is filed in the competent Court of law on dated 2.12.2014.

4. Following points arise for determination in the present bail application:

(1) Whether bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted after completion of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 4 investigation and after filing of challan in .

competent Court of law as alleged?.

(2) Final Order.

5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and Court also heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State.

Finding upon Point No.1.

6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.

7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that investigation is complete and challan already stood filed in competent court of law and criminal case will be disposed of in due course of time and on this ground bail application be allowed is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors should be considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 5

(ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which .

are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri.L.J 702 titled Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and it was held that object of bail is not punitive in nature. It was held that bail is rule and committal to jail is exception.

It was also held that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that it is not in the interest of justice that accused should be kept in jail for indefinite period. As per police report investigation is complete and challan already stood filed in Court in the present case and criminal case will be disposed of in due course of time. It is well settled law that accused is presumed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 6 to be innocent till proven guilty by the competent of Court of .

law. Court is of the opinion that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then interests of the general public or the State will not be adversely effected.

8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General that if the applicant is released on bail then applicant will induce and threat prosecution witness and on this ground bail application be rejected is devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditions will be imposed in the bail order that applicant will not commit similar offence in future. If applicant commits similar offence in future then prosecution will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to keep applicant in jail because investigation is complete and challan stood filed in competent Court of law. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative.

Point No.1 (Final order).

9. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by applicant is allowed. It is ordered that applicant will be released on bail on following terms and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 7 conditions on furnishing personal bond in the sum of .

Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court (i) That applicant will join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That applicant 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) That applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv) That applicant will not commit similar offence qua which he is accused. (v) That applicant will give his residential address to the Investigating Officer in written manner so that applicant can be located after giving short notice. (vi) That applicant will attend the proceedings of learned trial Court regularly.

Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.

(P.S.Rana), Judge.

May 5, 2015(R) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 8 .

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 9

.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP 10

.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:46 :::HCHP