Allowed

Rajnish Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC2 May 2017CRMPM/467/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners in FIR No. 63 of 2017 alleging IPC offences and Arms Act violation. The court held that since the petitioners were cooperating with investigation and posed no flight risk, they were released on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing personal bond of 50,000 each with one surety each, subject to conditions.

Rajnish Kumar Vs State of Hp — Anticipatory Bail | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MPs(M) No. 465, 466, 467 & 468 of 2017 Decided on: 2^nd May, 2017

¶3

*1. Cr.MP(M) No. 465 of 2017:*
Pawan Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh	....Petitioner …Respondent
*2. Cr.MP(M) No. 466 of 2017:*
Vikas Joshi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh	....Petitioner …Respondent
*3. Cr.MP(M) No. 467 of 2017:*
Rajnish Kumar Versus	....Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh	…Respondent
*4. Cr.MP(M) No. 468 of 2017:*
Harish Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh	....Petitioner …Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

For the petitioner(s):	Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondent/State:	Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.
____________________________	ASI Dhiraj Singh, I.O. Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P. __________________________________________

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral).

¶10

The present bail applications have been maintained 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. 63 of 2017, dated 04.04.2017, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

¶11

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

¶12

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 04.04.2017 complainant, Sunny Gupta, by way of a complaint reported to the police that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith his brother and a friend was returning from Manali to Kullu, in his Duster car. As per the complainant, he is permanent resident of 216, Sadar Bazar, Meerut. The complainant has further alleged that while enroute to Kullu, he was having `11,00,000/- (rupees eleven lac) and the petitioners restrained them from going forward. The petitioners also gave beatings to the complaint and his brother. The petitioners hurled threats to the complainant and his brother. The complainant and his brother were rescued by Hitanshu Dixit. The matter was reported to

¶13

¶14

the police. Police investigated the matter and prepared the spot map. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. The complainant and his brother were got medically examined. During the investigation it was unearthed that complainant was given beatings with grip of the revolver. Thus, Section 25 of Arms Act No. 54, 1959, was also added. As per the prosecution, the petitioners did not participate in the investigation when they were asked by the police and they told that they will come after having bail. It was further revealed that the petitioners and complainant were having enmity over some money issue. The petitioners participated in the investigation on different date and since then they are participating and co-operating in it. Car No. HP 34D-3685, which was allegedly used in the offence, was taken into possession. The petitioners denied that revolver was used by them. During the investigation it was also revealed that quarrel took place owing to some money dispute and no arm was used in it. It was also unearthed that at place called Bandrol, petitioners Harish Kumar and Pawan Kumar gave leg and fist blows to the complainant and his brother. As per the prosecution, the complainant deliberately portrayed the incidence in his own manner by adding that revolver was used in the offence. As per the prosecution, proceedings under Section 182 IPC are to be initiated against the complainant.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He has further argued that the petitioners are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidenced and flee from justice. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the matter is still in the investigation stages, so the petitioners may not be enlarged on bail.

¶18

At this stage, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, as above, and also the fact that the petitioners are not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, the 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. 63 of 2017, dated 04.04.2017, registered under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond to the tune of `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶19

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

¶20

¶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 petition is disposed of.

¶24

Copy dasti .

¶25

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 2^nd May, 2017 Judge (virender)

Rajnish Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Kumar 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

Vishal Bhardwaj Vs State of Hp

Vineet Verma Vs State of Hp

State Vs Gian Chand

Icici Lombar Gic Vs Soni Devi

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp

Vikas Joshi Vs State of Hp