Serving As General vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3975 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) UNDER SECTION





                 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,NO.151 OF
                 2021





    Between:

    SURAJ DHIMAN, SON OF SHRI
    K.D. DHIMAN, RESIDENT OF
    VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE

    UPPER GHALLOUR, DISTRICT
    KANGRA, H.P., PRESENTLY

    SERVING    AS    GENERAL
    MANAGER O & M DIVISION
    CORPORATE OFFICE NHPC
    LTD., SEC-33, FARIDABAD,


    HARYANA.
                                                                              ....PETITIONER.

    (BY. K.D. SOOD, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR. MUKUL




    SOOD, 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 No

    1
        Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?




                                                               ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:23 :::CIS
                                            2


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

                                   JUDGMENT

.

By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, read with Section 227 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.03.2021,

passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu,

H.P., in Bail application No.55 of 2021, titled as Suraj Dhiman

Versus State of H.P., vide which the bail application filed by the

petitioner, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code has

been dismissed.

2. One other accused, namely Dileep Kumar Yadav had

also approached the learned Court below for grant of anticipatory

bail, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was

also dismissed by the same order. Said accused had approached this

Court afresh, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure code, by

way of Cr.MP(M) No.545 of 2021, which stands allowed by the Court,

today.

3. In this case also, on 22.03.2021, this Court had granted

anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to his joining investigation

as and when directed by the Investigating Agency. He has joined the

investigation in terms of the directions of the Investigating Agency as

has been fairly submitted by learned Additional Advocate General,

though, on instructions, he submits that the petitioner is not

cooperating in the course of investigation.

.

4. Keeping in view the fact that the anticipatory bail

applications filed by the co-accused have been allowed by this Court

today, i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.545 of 2021 and Cr.MP(M) No.398 of 2021,

therefore, this petition is also disposed of by setting aside the order

dated 19.03.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Bail application No.55 of 2021, titled

as Suraj Dhiman Versus State of H.P., vide which the bail

application filed by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Criminal

Procedure Code has been dismissed and confirming the anticipatory

bail granted by this Court, vide order dated 22.03.2021, 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.

5. 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 petition 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, 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