Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohini Mahant vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP (M) No.94 of 2023 a/w
Cr.MP (M) No.95 & 96 of 2023
.
Decided on: February 28, 2023
________________________________________________________
1. Cr.MP(M) No.94 of 2023
Mohini Mahant ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent
________________________________________________________
2. Cr.MP(M) No.95 of 2023
Rubina Mahant
State of Himachal Pradesh
to Versus
....Respondent
________________________________________________________
3. Cr.MP(M) No.96 of 2023
...........Petitioner
Pinki Mahant ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) :
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal
Panwar, Additional Advocate
Generals.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of above captioned petitions bail petitioners
namely, Mohini Mahant, Rubina Mahant and Pinki Mahant have
approached this Court in the instant proceeding filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C, for grant of regular bail in FIR No.108 dated 8.12.2022,
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
registered at Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, Himachal
Pradesh under Ss. 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 147, 148, 149, 506 and
.
427 IPC.
2. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that
on 8.12.2022, complainant Bijli Mahant lodged a complaint at Police
Station Kot Kehloor, alleging therein that transgender of Anantpur
Punjab namely Pinki Mahant, Ritta, Ravina, alongwith their disciples
and goons unauthorizedly entered their area and gave them beatings.
She further alleged that the accused made deadly attack with swords
as a result of which, fingers of one Mukesh Kumar were cut. She
alleged that in the past also, Pinki Mahant alongwith her disciples had
unauthorizedly entered their area and had also attempted to take
/extort money but matter was compromised and it was agreed that both
the parties will not encroach upon their areas and they will ask for
Badhai in their respective areas. On the basis of aforesaid complaint,
FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail
petitioners named hereinabove. Since challan stands filed in the
competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the
bail petitioners, they have approached this Court in the instant
proceedings for grant of bail.
3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filling of the
challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned
Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be
recovered from bail petitioners, but keeping in view the gravity of
offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve
any leniency and their prayer for bail deserves outright rejection.
.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record, this court finds that fingers of injured
Mukesh were not cut on account of blow of sword, if any, given by bail
petitioners, named hereinabove, rather such injury was caused by Arun
Kumar, who is behind bars. Mere presence of the bail petitioner on the
date of incident at the spot may not be sufficient to conclude complicity
of the petitioners in case under S. 307 IPC. Whether the bail petitioners
had actually participated in the fight or had actually given beatings is a
question to be determined by learned trial Court on the basis of
evidence collected on record by the prosecution. Moreover, injured
Mukesh Kumar has recovered from the injury and at present he is out
of danger, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail
petitioners behind the bars.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases
have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time,
he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension
expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of
being enlarged on bail, bail petitioners may flee from justice or indulge
in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioners
to stringent conditions.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on
6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for
indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has
been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment
.
that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central
Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held
that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather
competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while
exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5
SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to
secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to
be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be
granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to
take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart
from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of
evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which
conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.
9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus
Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down
various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz.
prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment
involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being
influenced.
.
10. In view of above, bail petitioners have carved out a case
for themselves, as such, present petitions are allowed. Bail petitioners
are ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:
(a) They shall make themselves 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;
(b) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor
hamper the investigation of the case in any manner
whatsoever;
(c) They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises
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
They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior
permission of the Court.
11. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or
violates any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating
agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.
12. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be
construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain
confined to the disposal of these petitions alone. The petitions stand
accordingly disposed of.
.
A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the
learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner
and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the
downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained
from the official website of this Court.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
February 28, 2023
(shankar)
