Allowed

Chetan Chauhan v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC17 May 2017CRMPM/547/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to Chetan Chauhan under Section 438 CrPC for a theft charge. The court considered the petitioner's age, character, and the fact that co-accused were released, ordering release on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of ` 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer.

Chetan Chauhan Vs State of Hp — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MP (M) No.547 of 2017 Decided on: 17^th May, 2017

¶3

Chetan Chauhan ....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶6

…Respondent

¶7

Coram

¶8

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

¶9

For the petitioner : Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

¶11

HC Ram Lal, No. 206, Police Station, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P.

¶12

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge

¶13

The present bail application is maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail in case FIR No. 71/2017, dated 14.04.2017, under Sections 379, 511 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, H.P.

¶14

As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been

¶15

falsely implicated in this case. Further he belongs to a

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

respectable family and has not committed any offence whatsoever.

¶19

Police report filed. As per the prosecution story, on 13.07.2017, on complaint, the petitioner alongwith two other persons was found removing the parts of the DG Set, installed at Rajpura Hydro Power Project, in order to steal them and when complainant noticed them, the accused alongwith one other co-accused fled away from the spot, but with the help of local residents of that place, the driver of the vehicle was apprehended alongwith his vehicle and FIR No. 71 of 2017, under Sections 379, 511 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. It has further come on record that the petitioner earlier also found involved in some other theft cases.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a young boy of 22 years of age, doing a job of auto driver and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that if the petitioner is kept behind the bars alongwith professional criminals, there are chances that the life of the petitioner will be spoiled. On the other hand learned Deputy Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner has committed heinous crime and he is a habitual

¶21

¶22

thief, so the present bail application is required to be dismissed.

¶23

Heard. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, this Court finds that the petitioner is a young boy of 22 years of age and though there is an another case is pending against him, with regard to theft, but at this stage, it cannot be taken that the petitioner has committed that crime, only and unless he found guilty in that case. As far as present case is concerned, the co-accused in the present case have already been released on bail. Thus, taking into consideration the fact, which has come on record

¶24

and the manner in which offence alleged to have been committed, as well as the fact that the petitioner is joining and cooperating in the investigation, not in a position to flee from justice and also not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The interest of justice demands that judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. So, it is ordered that in the event of his arrest in this case, the petitioner be released on bail, on furnishing personal bond to the sum of ` 10,000/(rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the

¶25

¶26

satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject

¶27

to the following conditions:

¶28

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

¶29

ii. That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶30

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.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶32

Copy dasti .

¶33

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)

¶34

17^th May, 2017 Judge

¶35

(raman)

Chetan Chauhan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Chauhan 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

Brij Lal Vs State of Hp

Asha Vs State of Hp

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Hrtc Vs Madan Lal

Sunka Vs Ram Dhan

Nidhu Ram Vs Krishana Devi