Gian Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3334 HP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                          Cr.MP(M) No. 1361 of 2021
                                                          Decided on: 2nd August, 2021




                                                                                   .
    Gian Chand                                                                      ....Petitioner





                                                 Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                       ...Respondent

    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
    For the petitioner:                          Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
                                                 Vikas Shyam, Advocate, (through video





                                                 conferencing).

    For the respondent/State:     Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate
                                  General, with Mr. Amit Dhumal, Deputy
                               r  Advocate General.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. (oral)

The instant bail application has been maintained by the

petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

grant of bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 77 of 2021,

dated 16.07.2021, under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC, registered at

Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.

2. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place,

thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor

in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail.

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

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on

16.07.2021, upon the complaint of Shri Tilak Raj (complainant) police

registered a case. As per the complainant, he is Pradhan of Gram

.

Panchayat Krasa and at about 07:00 p.m. when he was present

alongwith villagers, i.e., Shri Sikander and Shri Suresh Kumar, at

Bahali and was checking the work of the road one Gian Chand

(petitioner herein) came armed with an axe. The petitioner inflicted axe

blows on the complainant, but he managed to dodge the same. In the

brawl, the complainant sustained injuries. As per the complainant,

Shri Sikander and Shri Suresh Kumar rescued him from the petitioner.

The complainant, while leaving the spot, threatened him to do away

with his life. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police

registered a case under the apt Sections of IPC and the investigation

ensued. The complainant was medically examined, police visited the

spot of occurrence, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements

of the witnesses. Initially, the petitioner tried to evade his arrest, but

on 21.07.2021 he joined the investigation. During the course of

investigation, the petitioner divulged that he was not armed with axe or

any other weapon, the scuffle took place without any weapon and

during the scuffle the complainant fell down and sustained injuries by

felling. As per the police, one more case under Sections 451, 427, 504

and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1) (s), 3(2), (v-a) SC &ST has been

registered against the complainant, in which, on 24.07.2021, he was

arrested and is currently in judicial custody. Lastly, it is prayed that

the petitioner has committed a serious offence and in case, at this

stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or

.

tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the bail application of the

petitioner may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the

records, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant

case. He is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position

to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from

justice. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioner is not

at all required by the police for any purpose, as nothing remains to be

recovered at his instance or from him. Investigation is almost complete

and moreover the petitioner, being the local resident, is not in a

position to flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application be

allowed in the above backdrop. On the other hand, learned Additional

Advocate General, has argued that the petitioner was found involved in

a serious offence and the investigation is still going on, so in case the

petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution

evidence or may flee from justice, so the bail application of the

petitioner may be dismissed.

6. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has

argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation,

as during the period of interim bail, he has joined the investigation and

.

co-operated in it and he is also ready to abide by the terms and

conditions of bail, in case granted. He has argued that considering the

overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the

petitioner is joining the investigation and co-operating in it, he may be

enlarged on bail, by allowing the instant application.

7. At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence

is alleged to have been committed, the fact that during the course of

investigation the petitioner joined and co-operated in it, the fact that

the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a

position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the

prosecution evidence, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required

by the police, he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and

conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that sending the petitioner

behind the bars will not serve any fruitful purpose and also considering

the overall facets of the case and without discussing them elaborately,

this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial

discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in

this case, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the

petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of

his arrest, in case FIR No. 77 of 2021, dated 16.07.2021, under

Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Rohru,

District Shimla, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case,

subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-

.

(rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to

the following conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when

required.

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

(iii) That the petitioner 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.

8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti.

                                               ( Chander Bhusan Barowalia )




    2nd   August, 2021                                       Judge
         (virender)