Himachal Pradesh High Court
______________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P on 8 January, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP (M) No. 1690 of 2018
.
Decided on : 08.01.2019
______________________________________________________________
Ajay Kumar .....Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
______________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional
Advocate General, with MR. Raju Ram
r Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondent.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Oral
The present petition has been filed for seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 102/2018, dated 18.07.2018, under Section 379/34 of IPC, Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner is behind the bar, since 21.07.2018 for commission of an offence.
A status report was filed on previous date of hearing. At that time, it was revealed that the case was listed for recording of evidence before the learned Trial Court on 27.12.2018 and 28.12.2018, whereupon, the State ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2019 23:04:35 :::HCHP 7 was directed to have instructions with respect to the latest status of recording of evidence.
.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General, submits that five witnesses have to be examined, however, learned counsel for the petitioner states that only police officials are to be examined and the material witnesses stand examined and now, for that purpose, the case is listed on 14.01.2019 in the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner has been subjected to trial for stealing a Maruti car No. HP39A1385, from Nagrota Bagwan, which was abandoned by him and his coaccused at Dehra road near Jawala Mukhi, when it met with an accident. After lodging the complaint by the owner of the vehicle, during investigation two persons i.e. accused in present case were arrested by the police in case FIR No. 113/2018 dated 21.07.2018 under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station, Palampur and during the interrogation in that case by Palampur Police, the accused persons had disclosed about the theft of vehicle involved in present case. On receiving information the investigating officer from Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, had also interrogated the petitioner and his coaccused who had disclosed the ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2019 23:04:35 :::HCHP 7 manner, in which the car was stolen by them, in his disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
.
4. On the identification of the place by both the accused, bumper of the stolen vehicle was recovered from the place named as Ghumar.
5. The petitioner had also applied for bail before the learned JMICII, Kangra, but learned Trial Court rejected the same on 23.08.2018, thereafter, an application preferred before the learned Sessions Judge was also dismissed on 10.10.2018, the petitioner had approached this Court enlarging on him bail, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.11.2018, thereafter, application preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by learned JMICII, Kangra, on 16.11.2018.
6. As per status report, since 2013, the petitioner is involved in commission of an offence in five cases registered i.e. FIR. No. 88/13 under Section 341, 323, 204, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Bhawarna, FIR No. 261/13 under Sections 224 IPC Police Station Palampur, FIR No. 04/13 dated 06.07.2013 under section 395/ IPC, Police Station Kangra and FIR No 113/18 under Sections 379/34 IPC of Police Station ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2019 23:04:35 :::HCHP 7 Bhawarna and the 5th case is present one. It is also reported that the petitioner was convicted in the case FIR No. 4/13 and after service, he .
has been involved in two cases of stealing the vehicles i.e. FIR No. 113/18 and FIR No. 102/18 i.e. present case.
7. Bail is rule and jail is an exception and involvement in other cases and conviction in earlier case may not be sole ground for rejection of regular bail. Personal liberty is paramount consideration, however, the personal liberty can be curtailed for valid and justifiable reasons particularly when it clashes with the public interest and the societal interest at large.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has been charged for commission of an offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC and maximum sentence provided for such commission of offence to maximum 3 years. The petitioner is behind the bar since July 2018 and the evidence of material witnesses have also been recorded. Previously, the bail applications preferred by the petitioner at the earlier stage were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the learned Trial Judge in public interest and the interest of the society at large and also on the ground that it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner will not be ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2019 23:04:35 :::HCHP 7 involved in commission of similar kind of offences and the apprehensions of possibility of dissuading the prosecution witnesses was also seen by .
the learned Trial Court as at that time material prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined in the Court. Now, material witnesses stand examined and therefore, keeping in view maximum sentence provided for the commission of an offence coupled with detention period of the petitioner in jail, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with two surety bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, if not required in any other case, subject to following conditions:
(i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when required, as per law;
(ii) That the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. They shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2019 23:04:35 :::HCHP 7(iii) That they shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the trial;
.
(iv) That the petitioners shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which they are accused or suspected;
(v) That the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any manner;
(vi) That the petitioners shall not jump over the bail.
(vii) He shall not leave territory of Himachal Pradesh without informing Court/Police.
(viii) He shall also supply his mobile/contact number to the Police Station Nagrota Bagwan and also keep on informing about the change in address/mobile/contact number, if any.
7. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioners as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
8. In case the petitioners violate any condition imposed upon them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2019 23:04:35 :::HCHP 7 prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
.
9. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of this bail application.
10. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Copy dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
r Judge
January, 08, 2019
( rohit )
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2019 23:04:35 :::HCHP