SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Cr.M.P(M) No.762 Of 2018 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 June, 2018



Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 762 and 763  

of 2018
Decided on : 26.6.2018

1. Cr.M.P(M) No.762 of 2018
Jaswinder Singh          …..Petitioner. 

State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent.

2. Cr.M.P(M) No. 763 of 2018
Gurcharan Singh

State of Himachal Pradesh
to  …..Petitioner. 



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

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. 

For the Respondent­State: Mr.   Hemant   Vaid,   Additional
Advocate   General   with   Mr.   Vikrant

Chandel,   Deputy   Advocate   General
and   Mr.   Yudhveer   Singh   Thakur,

Deputy Advocate General. 

SI   Pardeep   Singh,   Addl.   SHO,   PS
Baddi in person.


Sureshwar Thakur, J (oral)

Both  these   petitions   arise   out   of   a   common   FIR,

hence are liable to be disposed, of, by a common order. 


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

29/06/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP


2. The   instant   petitions,  stand  instituted   by   the   bail


petitioners,   under,   Section   438,  of,   the   Code   of   Criminal

Procedure, wherein they seek the grant of anticipatory bail  qua

them, given theirs apprehending their arrest, for theirs allegedly

committing offences punishable, under Sections  147,149,354 B,

504, 506,509,323 of Indian Penal Code, in case FIR No. 142/18 of

14.6.2018, registered at Police Station, Baddi.

3.      Status report filed.   The prima donna factum, as,is,

brought to the notice of this Court, is, comprised in the factum of

the   accused,   being   not   named   by   the   prosecutrix   in   the   FIR,

rather hers making a disclosure, in the apt FIR, qua, upon hers

being confronted with the accused/bail applicants, in a valid test

identification   parade,   conducted   by   the   Investigating   Officer

concerned, hers thereupon establishing their identities, besides,

also hers establishing their participation, in, the alleged offences.

However, the Investigating Officer has  reported to this Court,

that, despite his eliciting the presence of the prosecutrix, in a

test identification parade, yet, the prosecutrix not recording her

presence.   Consequently,   at   this   stage   the   participation   of   the

29/06/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP

accused   in   the   alleged   offences   is   prima   facie   not   clinchingly


established. Apart therefrom, prima­facie the prosecutrix, was (I)

enjoined, to, unravel in the apposite FIR, the key characteristic

features, of, each of the accused, and, also all apt features, as

unraveled to the Investigating Officer concerned, were, on hers

being   confronted   with   the   accused,   in,   a   test   identification

parade, enjoined to bear compatibility, with, their key physical

appearances, as earlier disclosed, (ii) whereupon alone it may be

convincingly   inferred   qua   the   prosecutrix   establishing,   the

identities of the accused, also, hers’ concomitantly establishing

their   participation   in   the   alleged   offences.  However,   the

investigating   Officer,   has   reported,   to   this   Court,   that   the

prosecutrix   has   not   divulged   in   the   apt   FIR,the   key

characteristic features of each of the accused, (iii) thereupon she

may be rather defacilitated, to, on hers being confronted, with,

the physical appearances of the accused, in, a test identification

parade, conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned, hence

establish   qua   their   physical   appearances,   bearing   concurrence

with,   their   key   characteristic   features,as,   purportedly   earlier

29/06/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP

disclosed, nor, hence she would be able to establish either the


identities of the accused or their unflinching participation in the

alleged offences.   Thereupon, prima­facie hence it appears that

the   prosecution,   at   this   stage,   is,   unable   to   firmly   establish

either the identity(s) of the accused or their participation in the

alleged offences. Moreover, when at this stage, no material, has

been placed on record, by the prosecution, demonstrating that in

the event of bail being granted to the bail applicants, there being

every likelihood of theirs fleeing from justice or tampering with

prosecution   evidence,   thereupon   this   Court   is   constrained   to

grant  indulgence   of   bail     in   favour   of   the   bail   applicants.

Accordingly the order(s) rendered on 18.6.2018,   are confirmed,

on, the following conditions:­

1. That they shall join the investigation, as
and   when   required   by   the   Investigating

2. That they shall not directly or indirectly
make   any   inducement,   threat   or   promise   to
any   person   acquainted   with   the   facts   of   the

29/06/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP

case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such


facts to the Court or to the Police;

3. That they shall not leave India without
the previous permission of the Court; 

4. That they shall deposit their passports,
if any, with the Police Station, concerned;

5. That   in   case   of   violation   of   any   of   the
conditions, the bail granted to the petitioners
shall be forfeited and they shall be liable to be

taken into custody;

6. That   they   shall   apply   for   bail   afresh
when the challan is filed before the trial Court.


4. In   view   of   above,   petitions   stand   disposed   of.  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. 

Dasti Copy. 

26th June, 2018       ( Sureshwar Thakur ),
(priti)     Judge. 

29/06/2018 22:59:55 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation