Allowed

Rajat Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC28 Jun 2017CRMPM/825/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to multiple petitioners, mostly women, implicated in an FIR involving domestic violence and unlawful assembly under the IPC. The court exercised judicial discretion in their favor due to their citizenship, residence, and status as newly married women, ordering them to furnish a personal bond of 10,000 rupees.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of `10,000/- each with one surety, subject to conditions regarding investigation and non-escape.

Rajat Kumar Vs State of Hp — Domestic Violence | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MPs (M) No. 825, 826, 827, 828, 830, 831, 832, 833, 835, 836, 838, 839, 841 & 843 of 2017 Decided on: 28^th June, 2017

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 825 of 2017

¶4

Rajat Kumar State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No. 826 of 2017 Vijay Kumar State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No. 827 of 2017 Poonam Devi State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No. 828 of 2017 Honey Kumar State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP (M) No. 830 of 2017 Kanta Devi State of Himachal Pradesh

¶5

....Petitioner Versus …Respondent ....Petitioner Versus …Respondent ....Petitioner Versus …Respondent ....Petitioner Versus …Respondent ....Petitioner

¶6

Versus …Respondent

¶7

Cr. MP (M) No. 831 of 2017 Sunita Devi

¶8

....Petitioner

¶9

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh

¶10

…Respondent

¶11

¶12

Cr. MP (M) No. 832 of 2017 Krishna Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. MP (M) No. 833 of 2017 Rajinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. MP (M) No. 835 of 2017 Gagan Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. MP (M) No. 836 of 2017 Shubham Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. MP (M) No. 838 of 2017 Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. MP (M) No. 839 of 2017 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Cr. MP (M) No. 841 of 2017 Asha Devi ....Petitioner

¶13

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶16

…Respondent

¶17

Cr. MP (M) No. 843 of 2017 Neeru Devi

¶18

....Petitioner Versus

¶19

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶20

…Respondent

¶21

Coram

¶22

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

¶23

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶24

For the petitioners : Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.

¶25

For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. ASI Padam Dev, Incharge, City Chowki, Bilaspur, H.P.

¶26

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral)

¶27

The present bail applications are maintained by the

¶28

petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail in case FIR No. 140/2017, dated 17.06.2017, under Sections 498-A, 452, 323, 147, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.

¶29

As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Further they are the residents of the place, ready and willing to join the investigation as and

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

when called upon by the Police and they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice.

¶33

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, all the petitioners, being members of unlawful assembly, given beatings to the complainant and the relatives of complainant and also committed offence under Section 498-A IPC. It has further come in the prosecution that the petitioners have tortured Ms. Meenu, who has been married in the house of the accused persons.

¶34

Heard. Taking into consideration the fact that some of the petitioners are women and some are newly wedded and also the fact that the petitioners are residents of the place and not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or to flee from justice, further they are joining the investigation and recoveries are already affected, this Court finds that interest of justice demands that judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be 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:

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.

¶40

Copy dasti .

¶41

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

¶42

(raman)

Rajat Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat 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

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

Akhil Sharma Vs State of Hp

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Hp