Allowed

Moti Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Sept 2017CRMPM/1102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered two anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a trespass and house damage case. Finding the petitioners cooperative and low-risk, bail was granted on personal bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail in event of arrest on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety each, subject to standard conditions including joining investigation and not leaving Indi

Moti Singh Vs State of Hp — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MPs(M) No. 1102 & 1103 of 2017 Decided on: 12^th September, 2017

¶3

*1. Cr.MP(M) No. 1102 of 2017:*
Moti Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh	....Petitioner …Respondent
*2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1103 of 2017:*
Shyam Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh	....Petitioner …Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶6

For the petitioner(s):	Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate.
For the respondent/State:	Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG, and Mr. Rajat Chuhan, Law Officer.
	SI Om Parkash Thakur, Station House Officer, Police Station, Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P.

¶7

______________________________________________________________________ Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

¶8

The present bail applications have been moved by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 25 of 2017, dated 17.08.2017, registered under Sections 452, 427, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), at Police Station Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P.

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

¶11

As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are permanent residents of District Shimla and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, thus they may be released on bail.

¶12

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 17.08.2017, complainant Shri Badri Ram made a complaint to the police alleging that on 16.08.2017, at about 9:00 p.m., when he was in his house alongwith his family members, the petitioners and their wives trespassed into his house and thrashed him. The complainant has further alleged that the petitioners have also hurled abuses and also threw their domestic goods outside the house. Owing to this, the complainant alongwith his family members was compelled to go to his field, in a hope to live there in a tent, however, the petitioners again came there and threw their goods to another field, due to which the goods were damaged. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case against the petitioners and investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared and the domestic goods, which were allegedly thrown by the petitioners, were taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. As per the prosecution, as the offence is of nonbailable category, wives of the petitioners have been served with notices under Section 41(k) Cr.P.C. and they joined the investigation. No

¶13

¶14

recovery is to be effected from the petitioners or at their instance and they are joining and co-operating in the investigation. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required. He has also argued that petitioners are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed.

¶17

At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, their custodial interrogation is not required, no recovery is to be effected in the present case and also the fact that the petitioners are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court finds that the

¶18

¶19

present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 25 of 2017, dated 17.08.2017, registered under Sections 452, 427, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of `10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(i) That the petitioners will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

¶21

(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶22

(iii) That the petitioners 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.

¶23

In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.

¶24

Copy dasti .

¶25

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 12^th September, 2017 Judge (virender)

Moti Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Krishan Lal

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Hp

Aneep Kumar Vs State

Ms Vardhman Industries Vs Vivek Saini

Shyam Singh Vs State of Hp

Shobha Ram Vs Bhavan Kumar