Himachal Pradesh High Court
Between vs State Of Himachal on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No. 2071 of 2022
Between:-
RAKA, S/O SH. JELA RAM, R/O
WARD NO. 17, DEHA BASTI,
SAMANA PATIALA, PUNJAB,
AGED 32 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SURI,
ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT
(M/S SUMESH RAJ, DINESH THAKUR &
SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERALS, WITH MR. AMIT KUMAR
DHUMAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
ASI SANJAY SHARMA, POLICE STATION
HAROLI, DISTRICT UNA, IS PRESENT IN
PERSON ALONGWITH THE CASE RECORD.
Whether approved for reporting?
__________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:-
ORDER
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 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
13.09.2022, passed in FIR No. 164 of 2022, dated 20.07.2022, registered
at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. under Sections 380 and 457 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 three 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.
Downloaded copy of this judgment is valid for
compliance.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
October 14, 2022
(bhupender)
