Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kameshwar Son Of Late Sh. Parma Ram vs State Of H.P. ....Non-Applicant on 4 May, 2015
Author: P.S. Rana
Bench: P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 359 of 2015
Order Reserved on 23rd April,2015
.
Date of Order 4th May, 2015
________________________________________________________
Kameshwar son of late Sh. Parma Ram ....Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. ....Non-applicant
________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
__________________________________________________________ For the Applicant: Mr. G.C.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate For the Non-applicant: Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General.
P.S. Rana, Judge.
Order:- Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 20 of 2015 dated 21.3.2015 registered under Sections 430, 504 and 506 Part-B of IPC at P.S. New Shimla.
1Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:08 :::HCHP 22. It is pleaded that applicant has not committed any offence as alleged and further pleaded that applicant will abide by terms and conditions imposed by Court.
.
Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought.
3. Per contra police report filed. There is recital in police report that applicant intentionally uprooted public water tap from sehan of complainant and placed the public water tap in his house and stopped the water supply to the house of complainant. There is recital in police report that accused did not allow the complainant and his children to use the public water tap since six months and when complainant went to take the water from water tap accused abused the complainant and told the complainant that if he would again come to take the water from public water tap then he would kill him. There is further recital in police report that site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There is also recital in police report that no further investigation is to be conducted from applicant and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant. There is recital in police report that accused is ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:08 :::HCHP 3 quarrelsome person and another FIR No. 46 of 2014 dated 1.10.2014 registered under sections 336, 504 and 427 IPC against the applicant. There is further recital in police .
report that applicant would induce and threat the prosecution witnesses in case applicant is released on bail and prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought.
4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-applicant and also perused the record.
5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:-
1. Whether the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by applicable is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application?
2. Final Order.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:08 :::HCHP 4
Findings on Point No.1
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and .
applicant did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.
7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that investigation is completed and no recovery is to be effected from applicant and on this ground anticipatory bail application filed by applicant be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence
(iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:08 :::HCHP 5 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It was held in case reported in 2012 Cri. L.J. 702 Apex Court DB 702, titled Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation that object .
of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial. It was held that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is exceptional. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further held that accused should not be kept in jail for an indefinite period. In view of the fact that investigation is complete and in view of the fact that no recovery is to be effected from applicant Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if applicant is released on bail because trial will be concluded in due course of time.
8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant that if bail is granted to applicant then applicant will induce, threat and influence the prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be declined is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditional bail will be granted to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:08 :::HCHP 6 applicant and condition will be imposed in the bail order to the effect that applicant will not induce and threat the prosecution witnesses. Court is of the opinion that if .
applicant will flout the terms and conditions of bail order then non-applicant will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail strictly in accordance with law. It is well settled law that Courts are under legal obligation to keep equal balance between criminal case and human rights of individual. In view of the fact that investigation is complete and in view of the fact that no recovery is to be effected from applicant it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow the application. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
Point No.2 (Final Order)
9. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and interim order dated 9.4.2015 is made absolute. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Bail petition filed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:08 :::HCHP 7 under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure stands disposed of.
.
(P.S.Rana),
May 04,2015(ms) Judge.
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:06:08 :::HCHP