Allowed

Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jul 2017CRMPM/845/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Finding that the petitioners are cooperating with the investigation, are residents, and are not likely to flee or tamper with evidence, the court granted bail subject to personal bond and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on bail on personal bond of `10,000/- each with one surety in like amount.

Ran Vijay Singh Vs State of Hp — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MP (M) No. 845 of 2017 Decided on: 4^th July, 2017

¶3

Ran Vijay Singh and another

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶7

…Respondent

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the petitioners : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

¶11

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge (oral)

¶12

The present bail application is maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on bail in case FIR No. 69/2017, dated 03.06.2017, under Sections 420, 468, 470, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

asked by the Investigation Agency and not in a position to flee from justice.

¶17

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, the complainant, who is a green card holder of United States of America and constructed his house in Ward No. 7, Daulatpur Chowk, District Una, H.P., on 03.01.2017, alongwith his wife after a period of five years arrived at India, he found that electric meter, No. DPB1000356/1242201753, installed in his house, got transferred in the name of accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant through Right to Information Act, 2005, has asked HPSEBL, Gagret to supply information in this regard. After receiving the information under RTI, the complainant came to know that the documents were prepared in forged manner and the accused persons with malafide intention and to grab the property of the complainant, have themselves made no objection affidavit by putting the signatures of the complainant on the affidavit, for the purpose of transferring the electric meter, but as per the complainant he has not visited India between the years 2012 to 2017.

¶18

¶19

Heard. Taking into consideration the fact which

¶20

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 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:

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

Copy dasti .

¶26

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 4^th July, 2017 (raman) Judge

¶27

Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ran Vijay 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

Dev Raj Vs Ramesh Chand

Krishna Devi Vs Luxmi Dutt

State Vs Bhagmal

Randhir Singh and Another Vs State of Hp

Bhagat Chand (deceased) Vs Pratap Singh

State of Hp Vs Gursharan