Shri Prashar Verma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 September, 2016

[Cites 6, Cited by 3]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shri Prashar Verma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 September, 2016

Bench: Sanjay Karol

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                      SHIMLA.
                                                 Cr.MP(M) No.1050/2016
                                                Decided on : September 16, 2016




                                                                                    .
    Shri Prashar Verma                                                         ...Petitioner





                                            Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                 ...Respondent
    Coram:





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? No




                                                       of
                                                  1




    For the Petitioner                 :       Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate.
    For the Respondent :                       Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Puneet
                                               Rajta, Deputy Advocate Generals.

    Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)

rt Arjit Sen Thakur, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Shimla is present alongwith record. Status report filed and taken on record. Record perused and returned.

2. F.I.R. No.210/2016, under the provisions of Sections 323, 354, 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Sections 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was registered at Police Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P., on 22.8.2016. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court seeking bail under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:19 :::HCHP 2

02.09.2016, this Court passed an interim order directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed .

therein. The said interim order is in operation till date.

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, states that investigation is in progress.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view rt that petitioner has made out a case for confirmation of interim order dated 02.09.2016. Petitioner is permanent resident of State of H.P. and during investigation has fully cooperated and there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court in the event of trial being initiated against him. There is nothing on record to highlight the past criminal conduct of the petitioner. His custodial interrogation is not required at all.

5. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:19 :::HCHP 3 the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the .

witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.

6. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the of following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:

rt

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

7. Having holistically considered the nature of offence and the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner-accused, and also in view of the law ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:19 :::HCHP 4 discussed, herein above, I feel that it is a fit case in which petitioner should be enlarged on bail.

8. For all the aforesaid reasons, interim order .

dated 02.09.2016 is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down therein. Needless to add, petitioner is not likely to flee from the territorial jurisdiction of the country. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time of Challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance rt with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

9. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:19 :::HCHP 5

10. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.

Liberty reserved to the State to revive the .

petition or seek cancellation of the bail, if need so arises subsequently.

Copy Dasti.

of September 16, 2016 (KS) (Sanjay Karol), J.

rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:14:19 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court