Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chet Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 2213 of 2020
Date of Decision: 07.01.2021
.
______________________________________________________________________
Chet Ram ....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh .....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent: M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and
r Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate
Generals, with Ms. Divya Sood, Deputy
Advocate General.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
On instructions, learned Additional Advocate General
submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation as and when
directed by the Investigating Officer. Further, as of now, no recovery etc.
is to be effected at his instance. However, as per him, grant of
anticipatory bail is not warranted in the facts of the case.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also
gone through the status report.
3. It is not in dispute that after the grant of bail, the
petitioner has duly participated in the course of investigation and has not
created any hindrance in the same. It is further not the allegation of the
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
prosecution that in the interregnum, post grant of anticipatory bail, the
petitioner has either tried to influence any witness or has created any
other impediment in the course of investigation.
.
4. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and order
dated 16.12.2020, passed in case FIR No. 430 of 2020, dated 02.12.2020
registered under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section
3(1) S of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. is made
absolute, subject to the following conditions:
"i) Petitioner shall furnish personal
bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ 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 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 comply 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.
6. Petitioner is directed to file a hard copy of the petition
alongwith other documents, if not filed earlier, with the Registry of this
Court within a period of two weeks.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
January 07, 2021
(bhupender)
