Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vipin Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 November, 2017
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1441 of 2017 Decided on: 29th November, 2017 .
__________________________________________________________________ Vipin Kumar ....Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG, with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
ASI Pritam Singh, P.S. Bharari, r District Bilaspur, H.P. _________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral).
The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 96 of 2017, dated 15.09.2017, under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), registered at Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 23:54:27 :::HCHP -2-3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 15.09.2017, HHG Desh Raj, got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that on 15.09.2017 at about .
07:40 p.m. when he was returning with the petitioner from CHC, after getting the petitioner medically examined, in case FIR No. 94 of 2017, dated 12.09.2017, registered under Sections 341, 323 and 382 IPC, the petitioner jumped from the road into the bushes and fled away. Despite best efforts the petitioner could not be found.
On the basis of the statement, so made by HHG Desh Raj, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 224 IPC and the police investigation ensued. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. As per the prosecution, on 29.09.2017, the petitioner participated in investigation in case FIR No. 94 of 2017, dated 12.09.20178, under Section 341, 323 and 382 IPC. The petitioner has moved anticipatory bail application in that FIR, which was dismissed.
The petitioner is under remand in that FIR, so his bail bonds in the present case could not be executed.
4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of the place. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 23:54:27 :::HCHP -3- General, has argued that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has once absconded from the custody of the police and there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the prosecution .
evidence in case FIR No. 94 of 2017 and may also flee from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail, so the application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail.
6. At this stage taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner is resident of the place and he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also the fact that in case FIR No. 94 of 2017 challan stands presented in the Court and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping in petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period and also the fact that the bail application of the petitioner, so filed by him under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 94 of 2017, dated 12.09.2017, under Section 341, 323 and 382 IPC, has been allowed, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police of Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., in case FIR No. 94 of 2017, dated 12.09.2017, under Sections 341, ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 23:54:27 :::HCHP -4- 323 and 382 IPC, fled away during the investigation and consequential FIR No. 96 of 2017, dated 15.09.2017, under Section 224 IPC was registered against him, therefore, the .
petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith in case FIR No. 96 of 2017, dated 15.09.2017, under Section 224 IPC, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required.
(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.
7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
29th November, 2017 Judge
(virender)
::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 23:54:27 :::HCHP