Allowed

Bhagat Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Mar 2024CRMPM/231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted anticipatory bail to multiple applicants accused in an FIR related to agitation against a drinking water project. The bail was confirmed subject to a personal bond and conditions to cooperate with the investigation and attend trials.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 15.02.2024 made absolute; applicants released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety of like amount.

Bhagat Singh Vs State of Hp — Anticipatory Bail | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 230 to 239, 243, 244, 267 and 274 of 2024 Reserved on: 01.03.2024 Decided on: 05.03.2024

¶3

	Cr.M.P(M) No. 230 of 2024
Phool Chand		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 231 of 2024
Bhagat Singh		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 232 of 2024
Baba Sidhpuri		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 233 of 2024
Bhup Chand		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent

¶4

¶5

Cr.M.P(M) No. 234 of 2024

¶6

Harish		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 235 of 2024
Rajnish Sharma		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 236 of 2024
Rattan Lal		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 237 of 2024
Khajana Ram		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 238 of 2024
Guman Singh		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 239 of 2024
Chuni Lal		.......Applicant

¶7

¶8

	Versus
State of H.P.	Cr.M.P(M) No. 243 of 2024	...Respondent
Dharam Pal		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 244 of 2024
Jitender Kumar		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 267 of 2024
Desh Raj		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
	Cr.M.P(M) No. 274 of 2024
Ajit Singh		.......Applicant
	Versus
State of H.P.		...Respondent
Coram
*The Hon’ble Mr.*	*Justice Virender Singh, J*	*udge.*
*Whether approv*	*ed for reporting?*¹

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

For the applicant(s): Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G.

¶12

Virender Singh, Judge

¶13

The above named applicants, apprehending their arrest, in case FIR No. 23 of 2024, dated 13.02.2024, under Sections 395, 353, 332, 109, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 186, 189, 427, 435, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 3 of PDP Act, registered with Police Station Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P., have filed these applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.PC’). 2. By way of these applications, the applicants have sought the relief to direct the police/I.O to release them, in the event of their arrest, in the above titled case by the police. 3. According to them, the local villagers/farmers of the area are agitating against the Lift Drinking Water Project in Ali Khud Navgaon, as, the scheme is causing danger to their agricultural land, as well as, fish farming. They were agitating for the last one month, as, the scheme was introduced without the consent of the villagers.

¶14

¶15

It is the case of the applicants that they have falsely been implicated, in this case, by the complainant. They have nothing to do with the offences, for which, they have been named as accused, in this case. Nothing is to be recovered from them and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶16

Apart from this, the applicants have given, certain undertakings, for which, they are ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/Investigating Officer under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 13.02.2024, complainant Kuldeep Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Jal Shakti, Sub Division, Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P. has submitted the complaint, disclosing therein, that he is posted as Assistant Engineer in Sub Division, Darlaghat. According to the complainant, the work of Lift Drinking Water Project was going on in Navgaon Khud. The said work was being executed through Contractor. 6.1. On 13.02.2024, work was going on smoothly and shuttering of the water tank was laid by the Contractor. However, against the implementation of the scheme, Rajnish Sharma along-with his companions, was agitating by laying a

¶18

¶19

tent. He was addressing his companions to stop the work of the scheme. Not only this, local MLA Randhir Sharma, Sher Singh, Desh Raj, Bhagat Singh, Danny Sharma, Ajit Singh, Aruna Sharma, Guman Singh, Daulat Singh, Bhup Ram, Devi Chand and Mast Ram, were also present in the agitation. All of them had given provocative speeches. After hearing the provocative speech Sher Singh, Desh Raj Bhup Singh, Aruna Sharma, Ganpat @ Rimpi, Harish, Jitender, Phool Chand, Dharam Pal, Devi Chand, Chuni Lal, Rattan Lal, Inder Dev, Khazana Ram and Baba Sidpuri, also reached at the spot.

¶20

6.2. Under the leadership of Rajnish Sharma, in a planned manner, about 150 men and women started raising slogans and they have tried forcibly to enter in the project site. Efforts were made to prevent them to do so, but, they started pelting stones. They had removed the barricades made up of the bamboo. In the stone pelting, Naib Tehsildar Prem Singh, Dy. S.P. Sandeep Sharma, SHO Moti Singh and other police officials sustained injuries. They have also caused damage to the on going project. Not only this, they have also thrown 80 cement bags and other material lying on the spot in a rivulet.

¶21

¶22

On the basis of above facts, the police registered the FIR in question.

¶23

As per direction of the SP, Special Investigating Team was constituted on 15.02.2024. The physical evidence was also collected from the spot. Thereafter, Section 435 IPC was also added, in this case.

¶24

Vide orders dated 15.02.2024, interim protection was given to the applicants by this Court, with a direction to join the investigation.

¶25

As per status report, the applicants have joined the investigation, but, they are not disclosing about the persons, who had taken away the articles from the spot. Even, the video recording of the spot was also shown to them, but, they could not identify the persons. The investigation is stated to be going on.

¶26

Thereafter, the supplementary status report was filed on 01.03.2024, in which, similar stand has been taken. 12. Since, the bail applicants have joined the investigation and they have also disclosed, during the investigation, that they have not taken away any article from the spot and also assured the police that whenever, they came to know about the persons, who had taken away the

¶27

¶28

cement bags and other articles from the spot, they will inform the police.

¶29

The applicants are residents of District Solan and, as such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, the interim order is made absolute, they may not be available during the course of trial.

¶30

The role allegedly played by the applicants, in the commission of offence, will be proved during the course of trial. The bail applications cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment, as, dismissal of the applications would be nothing, but, sending them to judicial custody.

¶31

Since, the applicants have joined the investigation and police is not able to make out a case for custodial interrogation, as such, the interim order dated 15.02.2024 is made absolute.

¶32

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the relief, which has been granted to the applicants, vide orders, dated 15.02.2024, is liable to be confirmed. Consequently, interim orders, dated 15.02.2024, are made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicants be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 23 of 2024, dated 13.02.2024, registered under

¶33

¶34

Sections 395, 353, 332, 109, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 186, 189, 427, 435, 506 IPC and Section 3 of PDP Act, registered with Police Station, Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P., on their furnishing personal bond, to the tune of ₹50,000/- each, with one surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law;

¶36

b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court;

¶37

c) That the applicants 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 the Court; and

¶38

d) That the applicants shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

¶39

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall

¶40

not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail applications.

¶41

¶42

The applicants are directed to move regular bail applications, when charge sheet will be filed in the competent Court of law.

¶43

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicants.

¶44

March 05, 2024 ( Virender Singh ) (naveen) Judge

Bhagat Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagat 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

Sahib Singh Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Nanak Dass

Sachin Vs State of Hp

Baba Sidhpuri Vs State of Hp

Bhup Chand Vs State of Hp

Harish Vs State of Hp