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
