Allowed

Ram Pal v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Dec 2019CRMPM/2408/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application for regular bail filed by two petitioners arrested for assault and offences under the SC & ST Act. The court held that judicial incarceration served no purpose as the investigation was nearly complete and offences were trivial, directing their release on bail with the furnishing of personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail by furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation and restrictions on contacting witnesses or influencing th

Ram Pal Vs State of Hp — Dowry and Cruelty | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No. 2408 of 2019

¶3

Date of Decision: December 27, 2019

¶4

Ram Pal & another ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar & Ms. Shiwani Tegta, Advocates, proxy counsel, for the petitioner.

¶9

For the respondent : Mr. Nand Lal thakur, Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶10

Anoop Chitkara, Judge. (oral)

¶11

The petitioners, who are under arrest, on being arraigned as accused in FIR Number 212 of 2019, dated Nov. 5, 2019, registered under Sections 451, 325, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(Va) & 3(1)(s) SC & ST Act, in the file of Police Station Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P., disclosing nonbailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail.

¶12

ASI Vidya Sagar, Investigating Officer, Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., is present along with records.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Status report stands filed in the Court and the same is taken on record. Police file perused to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and the same stands returned to the police official.

¶16

I have heard learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

¶17

4. FACTS :

¶18

The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is

¶19

as follows:

¶20

On Nov. 5, 2019, complainant Neelam Devi informed through written complaint to SHO, Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., that in the evening at 5.30 p.m. when she alongwith her husband Roop Lal was sitting in the courtyard of their house, both the petitioners came to their house and started abusing them. Petitioners are father and son and the son was carrying hockey stick in his hands. She further stated that both the petitioners attacked her husband and gave him beatings with fist and hockey blows resulting in injuries on his head and arms. The complainant and her children rescued the injured from the clutches of the petitioners. While leaving the spot, the petitioners also threatened them with dire consequences. The injured was initially medically examined at Civil Hospital Ghumarin from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla where statements of the complainant and the injured were also recorded. Thereafter, the other procedural formalities were completed

¶21

¶22

and the aforesaid F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioners/accused.

¶23

REASONING :

¶24

(a) The petitioners are in custody since 18.12.2019.

¶25

(b) Whatever is the ultimate outcome of the allegations, cannot be commented at this stage. There is no provision in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which creates a total bar for grant of bail.

¶26

¶27

(d) In the status report, there is no mention of previous criminal history of the bail petitioner.

¶28

(e) The petitioners are permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of parties, therefore, their presence can always be secured.

¶29

(f) Since the offences alleged are trivial in nature and so is the issue, as such, judicial incarceration is not going to serve any purpose.

¶30

(g) I am satisfied that no purpose will be served if the bail petitioners are continued in judicial custody.

¶31

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail in the present case, in connection with the

¶32

¶33

FIR mentioned above, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate or Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, and in case such Magistrate is not available, then any other Judicial Magistrate (First Class), of District Bilaspur, H.P. The learned counsel for the accused as well as the attesting person shall explain the conditions of this bail to the petitioners.

¶34

This Court is granting the bail subject to the conditions mentioned in this order. The petitioners undertake to comply with all the directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioners in acceptance of all such conditions:

¶35

The petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when called by the investigating officer and the petitioners undertake to appear before the investigating officer as and when directed to do so. However, whenever the investigation takes place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the accused shall not be called before 9 a.m. and shall be let off before 5 pm.

¶36

The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation.

¶37

The petitioners shall not hamper the investigation.

¶38

The petitioners shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer in any manner whatsoever.

¶39

¶40

The petitioners undertake not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or tamper with the evidence.

¶41

The petitioners undertake not to contact the complainant, victim and witnesses to threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics.

¶42

In case of the launching of the prosecution, the petitioners undertake to attend the trial and to appear before the Court which issues the summons or warrants and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court.

¶43

In case, the petitioners are arraigned as an accused of the commission of any offence, prescribing the sentence of imprisonment for more than 3 years, then within thirty days of knowledge of such FIR, the petitioners shall intimate the SHO of the present police station, with all the details of the present FIR as well as the new FIR and it shall be open for the State to apply to this Court, for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper.

¶44

If the petitioner owns or possesses any arms and/or ammunition, then he shall either sell or deposit all such arms and ammunition, before the concerned authorities, within 30 days from today.

¶45

In Kunal Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Bihar , 2017 AIR (SC) 5416, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to Sub Clause (c) of

¶46

¶47

Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and stated that conditions of bail cannot be arbitrary, fanciful and cannot extend beyond the ends of provisions. The Supreme Court held that the phrase “interest of justice” as used under Sub Clause (c) of Section 437(3) means “good administration of justice”, or “advancing the trial process” and inclusion of broader meaning should be shunned because of purposive interpretation.

¶48

It is clarified that the present bail order is only with respect to the above mentioned FIR. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the petitioner.

¶49

Respondent-State shall send a copy of this order to S.H.O. of the concerned Police Station.

¶50

Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.

¶51

Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Copy dasti.

¶52

(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.

¶53

December 27 , 2019 (PK)

Ram Pal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paras Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishnu Ram Vs O S D Erstwhile H P Administrative Tribunal

Puran Chand Vs O S D Erstwhile Hp Administrative Tribunal

Arun Sharma Vs State of Hp

Vikram Singh Vs State of Hp

State Vs Vipan Kumar