Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 October, 2020
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
.
Cr.MP(M) No. 1752 of 2020
Date of Decision : 6.10.2020
Karam Dass
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh
Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Nand Lal
Thakur, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Asstt. A.G., for
the State.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral)
The petitioner, on being arraigned as accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(c)(g)(s) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), in FIR No. 214 of 2020 dated 4.9.2020, registered in Police Station, Sunni, District Sunni, HP, has come up under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking permission to surrender before this Court, and simultaneously seeking release on ad-interim bail. Given the propositions of law involved, instead of accepting surrender, the Court stayed the arrest subject to his joining the investigation in the interim.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2020 20:24:07 :::HCHP 22. The accused/petitioner is present in Court and has offered to surrender, which is accepted, and thus, is in deemed custody of the Court. The status report stands filed, and I have gone through it.
.
3. The petitioner's criminal history relating to the offences prescribing sentence of greater than seven years of imprisonment or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years: The contents of the petition and the status report do not reveal any criminal history.
4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 23.9.2020 in the evening, when the complainant went to a natural stream of water to fetch water, then the petitioner did not let him do so. He told the complainant that they get the water through pipe and since they belong to schedule caste, as such, they are not supposed to take water from these streams as these belong to the Thakurs. After that, he alongwith Chunni Lal hit him and wanted to threw him down from the retaining wall. In the meanwhile, a lady came there and she rescued him from their clutches.
5. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are false and concocted and the allegations pertaining to the castes have been intentionally introduced with a view to deprive the accused for claiming the benefits under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. Further, learned counsel seeks bail and contends that the accused deserves at least a chance to reform.
6. The contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court grants bail, such order must be subject to conditions, especially of not repeating the criminal activities.
7. It remains undisputed that the petition had joined the investigation.
8. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR attracts the application of the directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its Police Officers ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2020 20:24:07 :::HCHP 3 not to arrest automatically where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.
.
9. An analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation would make out a case for bail.
10. The petitioner is a first offender and without commenting upon the truthfulness of the allegations, he has been advised to respect all people irrespective of their castes and not to indulge in racism.
11. The possibility of the accused influencing the course of the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions.
12. Given the above analysis and reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to the imposition of following conditions, which shall be over and above, and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, connected with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing a personal bond of INR 5,000/, (INR Five thousand only) to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of any officer authorized by him, or by Additional Registrar Judicial of this Court, during the course of the day. The furnishing of bail bonds shall be deemed acceptance of all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:
a) The Attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bonds, the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available). The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within thirty days from such modification, to the police station of this FIR, and ::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2020 20:24:07 :::HCHP 4 the concerned Court, if such stage arises.
b) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the Investigating officer or any superior officer.
.
c) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.
d) Once the trial begins, the appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted.
e) There shall be a presumption of proper service to the petitioner about the date of hearing in the concerned Court, even if it takes place through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail/ or any other similar medium, by the Court.
f) In case of Non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the expenditure (only the principal amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioner's failure to reimburse the State shall entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the bank account(s) of the petitioner. However, this recovery is subject to the condition that the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioner and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the petitioner in that FIR, and during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.
g) The petitioner shall abstain from all similar activities. If done, then while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so.
h) This bail order shall ipso facto vacate if the accused attempts to browbeat the victim or repeats the offence.
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2020 20:24:07 :::HCHP 5i) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial.
.
13. The officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or English.
14. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even before the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be. Such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.
15. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.
16. The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be a blanket order of bail in any other case(s) registered against the petitioner.
17. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
18. The SHO of the concerned Police Station or the Investigating Officer shall send a downloaded copy of this order, preferably a soft copy, to the victim, at the earliest.
19. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2020 20:24:07 :::HCHP 6The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.
Copy dast.
.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.
October 6, 2020 (KS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 06/10/2020 20:24:07 :::HCHP