Gandhidham vs State Of H.P. Was Allowed By A ... on 13 April, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Gandhidham vs State Of H.P. Was Allowed By A ... on 13 April, 2022

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

                                      1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                   ON THE 13th DAY OF APRIL, 2022




                                                               .
                         BEFORE





          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
    CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.867 OF 2022 IN
    CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) NO. 1923 OF 2022
    Between:





    MOHINDER BANSAL SONOF SHRI DES
    RAJ BANSAL, R/O PLOT NO.99-100,
    WARD NO. 6-A DUPLEX NO.5, NEAR
    DAV SCHOOL, ADIPUR





    GANDHIDHAM,GUJARAT-370201,AGED
    47 YEARS.                                              PETITIONER
    (BY SH. RAJESH VERMA ADVOCATE)

    AND


    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                                         RESPONDENT

    BY MS. RAMEETA RAHI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
    GENERAL


    Whether approved for reporting?


           This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
    following:




                                  ORDER

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 51 of 2016, dated 27.2.2016, registered in Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, under Sections 420,406 &120-B of Indian Penal Code. His bail application bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1923 of 2020 titled as Mohinder Bansal vs. State of H.P. was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 21.12.2020 with direction to release the petitioner on bail on the aforesaid FIR subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Baijnath/Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kangra/or any Judicial ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:17:03 :::CIS 2 Magistrate, District Kangra, HP. or Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Hamirpur, H.P. The said bench is not available now.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for correction/modification of orders dated 21.12.2020 stating therein that because of mention of Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate of Baijnath and Kangra, bail bonds are not being accepted by Judicial Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur, H.P..

3. In the order dated 21.12.2020 option has been given to the petitioner to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of either of the Court which include Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Hamirpur, HP.

Also. Therefore, I find no reason for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur to accept and attest the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner in compliance of order dated 21.12.2020 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1923 of 2020.

4. Therefore, this application is disposed of with observations that in terms of aforesaid order, Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Hamirpur, HP has also been empowered to attest and accept bail bonds of the petitioner.

5. In any case, for further convenience, as the FIR has been registered in Police Station, Hamirpur, it is clarified that petitioner shall furnish personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Hamirpur and not to the satisfaction of any other Magistrate of District Kangra including Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath and Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kangra.

::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:17:03 :::CIS 3

With aforesaid observations, application is disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge.

13th April, 2022 (veena) .

                    r           to









                                              ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 20:17:03 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court