Himachal Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Sharma vs State Of Hp on 1 April, 2016
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP (M) No 318 of 2016
.
Date of decision: 1.4.2016
Abhishek Sharma ...Petitioner.
Vs
State of HP ...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
of
Whether approved for reporting?No.
For the Petitioner : Mr.Ashwani Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
rt Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General
with Ms. Meenakshi Sharma,
Additional Advocate General and
Ms.Parul Negi, Dy. AG for the
respondent.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge:
The petitioner has sought bail in case FIR No. 3/2016, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla, District Shimla, HP, on 6.1.2016, under sections 269, 270,277,336,326,304, 420,120-B IPC and 43,44 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
2. At the outbreak of jaundice in Shimla town, a complaint came to be filed on 5.1.2016 by the Deputy Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla for registering an FIR against the contractor of sewerage treatment plant, Dhalli and Malyana.
The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Field Supervisor at the said plant.
3. The petitioner has claimed his entitlement to bail on the basis of parity on the ground that the other co-accused have already been released by this Court vide orders dated 8.3.2016 passed in Cr.MP (M) No.215 of 2016 in case titled Hem Chand ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:57 :::HCHP 2 Chauhan Vs. State of HP, Cr.MP (M) No.258 of 2016 titled Roop Lal Gautam Vs. State of HP decided on 10.3.2016 and .
Cr.MP(M) No. 267 of 2016 titled Manoj Verma Vs.State of HP, decided on 17.3.2016.
4. On the other hand, Sh.Shrawan Dogra, learned Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner is of accused of a serious offence and, therefore, ought not to be released on bail.
rt I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the investigation.
5. It is more than settled that parity alone cannot be the sole ground for granting of bail. It is only one of the grounds for consideration of the question of bail. There is no absolute hide bound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co-
accused when another co-accused has been granted bail. If on careful scrutiny in a given case it transpires that case of the bail petitioner is identically similar to the accused and facts and circumstances of the case who has been bailed out, then desirability of consistency will require that such an accused should also be released on bail.
6. Even in such circumstances, a Judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity if the order granting bail to the identically placed co-accused contains no cogent reasons or if the same is passed in flagrant violation of well settled principles of law and ignores to take into consideration the relevant factors essential for granting bail.
Such an order can never form the basis for claiming parity. It ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:57 :::HCHP 3 will be open to the Jude to reject the bail application of the applicant before him as no Judge is obliged to pass order .
against his conscious mainly to maintain consistency. After all, grant of bail is not a mechanical act.
7. Adverting to the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hem Chand Chauhan and of Roop Lal Gautam supra, it would be noticed that it is after recording detailed reasons that the said officials have been rt ordered to be released on bail. That apart, it would also be noticed that the Bench had in fact come to a categorical conclusion that it was only the lower ranking officials who were being booked whereas, the prosecution ought to have taken action against the higher officials. A very strong statement has indeed been made by the court when it observed that lower officials are being booked and made scapegoat under the various penal laws but the highest officers are dealt with leniently for the reasons best known to the functionaries of the State.
8. These facts were duly noticed by me while passing orders in Manoj Verma's case (supra). It is not in dispute that accusations attributed to the petitioner and his complicity in the alleged offence is, in no manner, more grave or serious to that of the co-accused already ordered to be released on bail through detailed reasoned order passed on 8.3.2016 and 17.3.2016 respectively
9. Therefore, it is a fit case where petitioner ought to be released on bail, particularly when he is a government ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:57 :::HCHP 4 servant and is working as Assistant Engineer in the Department of IPH, Sub Division, Dhalli, District Shimla and there is hardly .
any chances of his jumping the bail.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with the case FIR No. 3/2016, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla, of District Shimla, HP, on 6.1.2016, under sections 269, 270,277,336,326,304, 420,120-B IPC and 43,44 of Water rt (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla with the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required.
(iv) that the petitioner shall not misuse their liberty in any manner.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Shimla, District Shimla is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:57 :::HCHP 5 vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.
.
11. Any observation made hereinabove 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 hereinabove.
of Petition stands disposed of.
rt (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
Judge.
April 1, 2016
(sl)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:57 :::HCHP