Reshma Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1355 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                                   .
                                   Cr.MP(M) No. 335 of 2021





                            Date of decision: February 26, 2021.





    Reshma Devi                                 ......Petitioner.
                             Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                   .....Respondent.

    Coram


    Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1


    For the petitioner       :     Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate.

    For the respondent       :     Mr. Amit Dhumal, Dy. AG.

                                   ASI Randhir Singh, I/O Police Station,
                                   Jawali, District Kangra in person.



    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral)

Petitioner is a lady, aged around 50 years. She is co-

accused in FIR No. 186 of 2020, dated 16.12.2020, registered at

Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, under Sections 147, 148,

149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 452, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

She has been detained w.e.f. 17.12.2020 and, therefore, by

means of instant petition preferred under Section 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, prays for grant of regular bail.

2. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a

statement recorded by the complainant under Section 154

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

Cr.P.C. The complainant Rajat Kumar stated that on 16.12.2020,

he alongwith his brother Surjit Singh and sister-in-law Neha were

.

relaxing in their courtyard when at around 11:30 A.M. their

neighbourers i.e. Puran Chand, Reshma (wife of Puran

Chand/petitioner, Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar's wife and mother,

petitioner's daughter and daughter-in-law came to the spot,

hurled abuses and started a fight because of an old land dispute

existing between the parties.

to In the process, Raj Kumar using

the sickle carried by him inflicted injuries on the complainant,

whereas Reshma (Petitioner) caused injuries to Surjit Singh by

using the sickle held by her. The other accused persons also

gave fist and leg blows to the Complainant, his brother Surjit

Kumar and Neha (Bhabhi of the complainant). The accused

persons thereafter left the spot after threatening the

complainant, his brother and bhabhi that they will not be spared

and passage will be taken from them per force.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the FIR was

registered. During investigations, accused Raj Kumar recorded

his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the

basis of which, a sickle allegedly used by him was recovered.

Another co-accused Puran Chand also gave his statement under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the basis of which

second sickle statedly used by him in the incident was also

recovered by the investigating agency.

Co-accused Neelam Kumari, Bhano Rani and Puran

Chand have been enlarged on bail by learned Additional Sessions

.

Judge-I, Kangra at Dharmashala vide separate orders passed on

18.1.2021. However, the bail petition preferred by the petitioner

has been rejected on the ground that according to the status

report, bail applicant had entered into the courtyard of the house

of the injured persons with the weapon of offence i.e. 'Darat', as

4.

r to a consequences of which, the complainant alongwith other

persons had sustained grievous injuries as observed in the MLC.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

two factions involved in the alleged incident had previous enmity

with each other on account of a long standing land dispute. On

the alleged day of incident i.e. 16.12.2020, a counter FIR No 187

of 2020 was also registered at Police Station, Jawali, District

Kangra at the instance of accused persons against the

complainant and his relatives. The offences alleged against the

petitioner in the FIR in question have not been committed by her.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea of

innocence and false implication. He has further submitted that

the petitioner will abide by all the terms and conditions in case of

enlargement on bail.

Opposing the bail petition, learned Deputy Advocate

General submitted that the petitioner is accused of serious

offences. Alternatively, it was submitted that in case this Court

was inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, then the same be

made subject to stringent conditions.

.

5. I have perused the status report as well as the record

produced today by the Investigating agency. It appears from the

record that initially the statement was made by the complainant

that sickle in question was carried and used by the petitioner,

however, during investigation it transpired that sickle was

actually carried and used by co-accused Puran Chand.

Puran Chand has also given his statement in this regard under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the basis of which, the Said

sickle was recovered. Said Shri Puran Chand has already been

enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.1.2021. The status report

does not reflect any criminal history of the petitioner, who is a

lady, aged around 50 years. The petitioner is stated to be a

house wife and agriculturist belonging to the area. The

investigation in the matter is stated to be complete. In view of

above, no significant purpose will be served by keeping the

petitioner behind the bars any further. Role of the petitioner, if

any, during the alleged incident is yet to be proved by leading

cogent evidence during the trial. Petitioner has completed

around three months in custody. Therefore, in my view, the

petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, instant

petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one local

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court

having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to

.

the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating

Officer in accordance with law. She shall fully cooperate the Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the concerned police station as and when called in accordance with law;

(ii) Petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever:

(iii) Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii)

Petitioner shall not contact the complainant or

his family members in any manner whatsoever. Petitioner shall not contact, threaten or intimidate the victim in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) Petitioner shall not 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

(v) In case of launching of prosecution, petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same

shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of her Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions

of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move

appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made

clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of

adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as

an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned trial Court shall

decide the matter without being influenced by any of the above

.

observations.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition

stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous

applications, if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge.

February 26, 2021 (vs)