Allowed

Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Nov 2019CRMPM/1962/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an accused in an SC/ST atrocity case and elected Pradhan, applied for bail. The High Court allowed bail, citing his community roots and lack of flight risk, while imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on Rs. 50,000 personal bond with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, inducement, and leaving India.

Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp — Caste Atrocities | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr. MP (M) No.1962 of 2019. Decided on: 7^th November, 2019

¶3

Sushil Kumar Sharma

¶4

……Petitioner.

¶5

State of H.P.

¶6

Versus ……Respondent.

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Narinder Guleria, Addl. A.G. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Dy.S.P. Bilaspur along with record.

¶9

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral).

¶10

The petitioner is an accused, in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 189/19, under Section 3(i)(r)(s) and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Sections 323 & 506 IPC on 28.8.2019, in Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

The present is a case of registration of cross FIRs as at the instance of accused-petitioner FIR No. 188/19 came to be registered on 28.08.2019 itself against Naresh Kumar, the complainant herein under Section 341, 353, 323, read with Section 34 IPC in the same Police Station.

¶14

The investigation of this case was entrusted to Shri Sanjay Sharma, Dy. S.P. (Headquarter) Bilaspur. He has conducted the investigation, interrogated the accused-petitioner also on 11.09.2019 and associated other persons allegedly present on the spot. Perhaps being not aware of the provisions contained under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 and finding that the FIR lodged at the instance of Sanjeev Kumar supported by his supplementary statement and the statement of the victim of the occurrence Naresh Kumar alone are not sufficient to make out a case under the provisions of the Act, the I.O. was of the view that

¶15

¶16

the commission of such an offence should be deleted from the record.

¶17

It is when this matter considered by the District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 27.9.2019, a decision was taken to obtain legal opinion from the Special Prosecutor/District Attorney, Bilaspur. Consequently, the Special Prosecutor/District Attorney, Bilaspur has examined the record and also the provisions contained under the Act and concluded that prima facie a case for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989, is made out against the accused-petitioner. The matter was again considered by the District Level Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 22.10.2019 and it was unanimously resolved to accept the opinion in the matter obtained from District Attorney/Special Prosecutor. The Investigating Officer was directed

¶18

¶19

to complete the investigation and file the challan in the Court within the time prescribed for the purpose. Perhaps the investigation was not complete and the I.O. wants to conduct further investigation and as sufficient time was not left for the purpose by the time, the Committee had taken the decision, an application under Rule 7(2) A of the Rules framed under the Act was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Bilaspur for extension of time by 15 days further to complete the investigation and filing final report. Learned Special Judge, however, has dismissed the application by a reasoned order on 24.10.2019. Anyhow, the final report was prepared on 24.10.2019 itself and the same filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, Bilaspur.

¶20

On filing of challan in the trial Court this application should have been disposed of by leaving it open to the accused-petitioner to approach learned trial Judge for grant of bail. The

¶21

¶22

present, however, is a case where he after having surrendered in this Court on 25.10.2019 and filed the present application for grant of bail, is in the custody of this Court, of course, not allowed to be taken in custody and rather the Investigating Officer directed to interrogate him and bound down to join further interrogation on day-to-day basis. The present, therefore, is a case where it is deemed appropriate to consider and decide the question of grant of bail to the petitioner by this Court itself.

¶23

The present is a case where the accused-petitioner being Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Panjgain and an elected representative has made caste based remarks/aspersions against the members of the complainant party. The offence he committed as such is not only heinous, but grievous in nature also. Anyhow, at this stage, nothing can be said with all certainty and exactness about the authenticity and genuineness of the

¶24

¶25

allegations against him and the truth will surface during the course of his trial in the Court below.

¶26

True it is that neither the Investigating Officer arrested him nor he surrendered before the Court after the registration of the case. It would not be proper to make any observations qua this aspect of the matter as in that event prejudice is likely to be caused to the case of either party. The explanation that the accused-petitioner absconded and it is for this reason he could not be arrested turned false on perusal of the record produced by the I.O. and it is recorded so after perusal thereof in the order passed yesterday on 6.11.2019.

¶27

Irrespective of what has said hereinabove, the accused-petitioner is permanent resident of Village and Post Office Panjgain, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, and is an elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Panjgain. Therefore, it can reasonably be believed that he has roots in the society. Being so, there is no likelihood of his

¶28

¶29

fleeing away from justice if ordered to be admitted on bail. So far as the investigation is concerned the same is complete and the challan also stands filed

¶30

in the Court. It is expected from the accusedpetitioner that he will not indulge himself in any unlawful activities like tampering with the prosecution evidence and terrorizing the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

For all the reasons hereinabove, this application is allowed. Consequently, the accusedpetitioner, who has surrendered before this Court in connection with FIR No.189/19, registered in Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Bilaspur. He shall further abide by the following conditions:-

¶32

a. he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶33

¶34

b. he shall not 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 Court or the Police officer; and

¶35

c. he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶36

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him; the Investigating Agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶37

The observations hereinabove shall remain confined only to the disposal of this petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of.

¶38

Copy Dasti.

¶39

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), November 07, 2019(ps) Judge.

Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar 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

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Bharti Sharma Vs Surinder Singh

Kapil Thakur and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Surya Kant (through Mother Nirmala Devi) Vs State of Hp

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Poonam and Others

Nirmala Devi Vs State of Hp