Shri Sher Singh vs Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3969 HP

            IN      THE       HIGH       COURT OF           HIMACHAL                PRADESH,
                                                SHIMLA
                           ON THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021




                                                                                .
                                                BEFORE





                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

                    CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) NO.398 OF 2021





    Between:

    RAM KRISHAN SON OF LATE





    SHRI SHER SINGH, RESIDENT
    OF VILLAGE BIRTO, POST
    OFFICE GHUKARI, TEHSIL &
    DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
                                                                              ....PETITIONER.

    (BY. SHRI N.S. CHANDEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR.

    VINOD GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
    AND
    STATE OF HIMACHAL


    PRADESH.
                                                                ....RESPONDENT/STATE.
    (BY. MR. ADARSH SHARMA, MR. SUMESH RAJ, MR.SANJEEV




    SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, WITH MR.J.S.
    GULERIA, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL.)





    MR. BINNY MINHAS, I/O DYSP/SDPO BANJAR, DISTRICT
    KULLU, H.P., PRESENT IN PERSON.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes





                 This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

                                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner in this case has approached the Court for the

purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, in FIR No.102 of 2018, dated

28.09.2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Penal Code, registered at Police Station Banjar (Seraj), District Kullu,

H.P. He was granted anticipatory bail, vide order dated 02.03.2021,

.

passed by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner has post grant of anticipatory bail duly joined the

investigation.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in

the course of investigation, the petitioner is not cooperating. On a

pointed query put to the learned Additional Advocate General by

the Court, the Court was informed that the petitioner has been

called twice or thrice since the date of grant of interim bail, for

investigation.

4. It is not in dispute that after grant of the bail to the

petitioner, he has participated in the course of investigation as

and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at

length, this Court is of the considered view that the word

'cooperation' is being wrongly interpreted by the police, as if an

accused is supposed to confess his guilt during the course of

investigation. That is not what is the intent of the word

'cooperation'. The word 'cooperation' means that on the asking of

the Investigating Officer, the accused has to present himself before

the Investigating Officer and participate in the investigation, but in

the course of the same it is not as if he has to implicate himself so

as to prove the case of the prosecution. Besides this, the State has

.

not been able to point out specifically as to why the custodial

investigation of the petitioner is necessary, especially as he has

been participating in the investigation as an when directed by the

Investigation Officer.

6. Taking into consideration these facts, this petition is

allowed and order dated 22.03.2021, passed in FIR No.102 of 2018,

dated 28.09.2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Banjar (Seraj),

District Kullu, H.P., is made absolute, subject to the following

conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today.

ii) He shall make himself available for the purpose of

interrogation, if so required and 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;

iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

iv) 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

v) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court.

7. It is clarified that the findings which have been returned

by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of

.

adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court

shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this

Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case.

It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not complies

with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while

granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach

this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands

disposed of in the above terms.

Copy dasti.

    August 17, 2021                                  (Ajay Mohan Goel)
         (rishi)                                            Judge