SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Cr.M.P(M) No. 1535 Of 2018 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 November, 2018

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH    
         SHIMLA

.

Cr.M.P(M) No. 1535 of 2018
Decided on : 27.11.2018. 

 
         
          
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
Sh. Bhajan Dass …Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. 

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. 

For the Respondent: Mr.   Hemant   Vaid,   Mr.   Desh   Raj
Thakur,   Additional   Advocate

Generals   with   Mr.   Vikrant   Chandel
and   Mr.   Yudhveer   Singh   Thakur,
Deputy Advocate Generals. 

HC Ramesh Chand No. 1671, P.P City

Rampur in person.  

 
         
          
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            

Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)

The instant petition has been instituted by the bail

applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for his being ordered to be

released from judicial custody, wherein he is extantly lodged, for

his   allegedly   committing   offences   punishable,   under,   Section

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

30/11/2018 22:57:01 :::HCHP

…2…

376(2) G IPC registered in case FIR No. 133/06 dated 6.7.2006

.

with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla. H.P. 

2. Mr.   Hemant   Vaid,  learned   Additional   Advocate

General submits that the bail applicant after his being arrested

was produced before the learned trial Court, and, thereafter up

till  now  he   is  undergoing  judicial  incarceration,   for,   hence  his

facing trial in case No. 8­R/7 of 2011.  He further submits that  a

verdict   of   acquittal   stands   pronounced,   vis­a­vis,   the   accused

appearing, in the afore sessions trial.

3. Since the accused appearing before the learned trial

Court   rather   stood   acquitted,   hence,   the   evidence   previously

adduced before the learned Sessions Judge, concerned, and, qua

the afore  accused,  is prima­facie,  at this  stage,  also  infirm, in

concluding qua the guilt of the accused. The verdict of acquittal

stands   pronounced,   upon,   the   appearing   accused,   given   the

prosecutrix not supporting the prosecution case.   Hence, at this

stage,   the   afore   verdict   of   acquittal,   does   also   reiteratedly

prima­facie   negate   the   guilt   of   the   bail   applicant,   in,   the

commission, of, the afore offences, borne in  FIR No. 133 of 2006.

30/11/2018 22:57:01 :::HCHP

…3…

4. However,   at   this   stage,   the   learned   Additional

.

Advocate General has made a vehement contention before this

Court   that   since   the   bail   applicant   remained,   under   abscond­

tion,   for about 12 years, hence there is every likelihood of his

fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence,

in case the facility of bail is granted to him.  However, the afore

apprehension   can   be   overcome   by   imposing   the   following

stringent conditions upon him:­ 

1. That he shall furnish personal bond in the sum

of Rs.5,00,000/­ with two sureties in the like amount,
to   the   satisfaction   of   the   learned   Chief   Judicial

Magistrate, Shimla.

2. The prosecution is at liberty to ensure re­

stepping of the witnesses in the witness box, if

they are still alive, and, can yet be served. 

3. That   he   shall   join   the   investigation,   as   and
when required by the Investigating agency.

4. That   he   shall   not   directly   or   indirectly   make
any   inducement,   threat   or   promise   to   any   person
acquainted   with   the   facts   of   the   case   so   as   to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to the Police. 

30/11/2018 22:57:01 :::HCHP

…4…

5. That he shall not leave India without the prior

.

permission of the Court. 

6. That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with
the Police Station, concerned. 

7. That   in   case   of   violation   of   any   of   the
conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be

forfeited   and   he     shall   be   liable   to   be   taken   into
custody.

5. Any   observation   made   herein   above   shall   not   be

taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and

the   trial   Court   shall   decide   the   matter   uninfluenced   by   any

observation made herein above.  

Copy dasti.   

27th November, 2018.        ( Sureshwar Thakur ),

(priti)    Judge. 

30/11/2018 22:57:01 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh