Allowed

Akhil Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC28 Jun 2017CRMPM/815/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to Akhil and Ravikant Sharma under Section 438 CrPC in FIR 96/2017 alleging offences under Sections 382, 323, and 34 IPC. Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of like amount to the Investigating Officer.

Akhil Sharma Vs State of Hp — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MPs (M) No. 815 & 816 of 2017 Decided on: 28^th June, 2017

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 815 of 2017

Akhil Sharma

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No. 816 of 2017

…Respondent

Ravikant Sharma

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶13

…Respondent

¶14

Coram

¶15

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

¶16

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶17

For the petitioners : Ms. Nisha Sankhyan, Advocate.

¶18

For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. HC Sanjeev Pundeer, No. 80, PS Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P.

¶19

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral)

¶20

The present bail applications are maintained by the

¶21

petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail in case FIR No. 96/2017, dated

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

16.06.2017, under Sections 382, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P.

¶25

As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Further they are joining and cooperating with the investigation as and when asked by the Investigation Agency and not in a position to flee from justice.

¶26

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 16.06.2017, at about 11.40 p.m., the petitioners alongwith Ankush Mahajan, have snatched two barrel gun of the complainant with its cartridges and after given beatings to the complainant, fled away from the spot. It is further averred that some of the stolen cartridges were recovered from the spot and some cartridges were recovered from Ankush Mahajan, after registration of the

¶27

case. It has further brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused No. 3, Ankush Mahajan, has already been released on bail.

¶28

Heard. Taking into consideration the fact which has come on record and the manner, in which offence alleged to have been committed, as well as the fact that the petitioners are residents of the place, 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. This Court finds that judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is

¶29

¶30

exercised in their favour. So, it is ordered that in the event of their arrest in this case, the petitioners be released on bail, on their furnishing personal bond to the sum of ` 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each, with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

iii. That the petitioner(s) 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.

¶34

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.

¶35

Copy dasti .

¶36

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 28^th June, 2017 Judge

¶37

(raman)

Akhil Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Sharma 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

Shyam Dass Vs Dina Nath Thakur

Ringchhing Namgial Negi Vs State of Hp

National Insurance Company Vs Neelam Verma

State of Hp Vs Singhi Ram

Rajat Kumar Vs State of Hp

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Hp