Ajeet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

The matter is taken up through video conference.

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in the

event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 101 of 2020, dated 27.06.2020, under Sections 353, 186, 188, 269, 270, 504 and 506 IPC, registered in Police

Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place

and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending

him behind the bars, so he be released on bail.

Police reports stand filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 27.06.2020 Constable Naresh Kumar (complainant), who

was deployed in Badripur containment zone for Covid-19 duty, made a written complaint alleging that on 27.06.2020, while he was performing his

duty, at about 06:30 p.m. vehicle, having registration No. HP17A-5878, was stopped and parked alongside the road. When the complainant inquired

from the driver, (Ajeet Singh, petitioner herein) from where he is coming, he replied that in the morning he went somewhere in his truck and now he is

going to his home. The petitioner was informed that as the area is containment zone and no one can come from home, upon this he got exasperated

and started abusing the police and scuffle ensued. Due to the abusive language and scuffle, many people gathered on the spot, however, the petitioner

continued with his acts. Thus the petitioner obstructed the complainant and another Home Guard personnel in discharging their official duties. The

complainant videographed the incident and later on the petitioner disclosed his identity and whereabouts. Upon the complaint, so made by the

complainant, police registered a case under the apt Sections of Indian Penal Code and the investigation ensued. Spot map was prepared and the

statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police. Video recording was converted into a DVD and it was sent for forensic analysis. Vehicle of

the petitioner was seized alongwith its documents and key. As per the police, the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and one

more case found to have been registered against him in Police Station Paonta Sahib. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be

dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he

may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his bail application be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the

police report, carefully.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the

petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further

argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, nothing is

to be recovered from him.

He has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for investigation, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the

learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on

bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be

dismissed.

In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper

with the prosecution evidence, as he is permanent resident of the place. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is joining

and co-operating in the investigation, nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, so the instant bail application be allowed and the petitioner

be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, after considering the different facets of the case in hand and incisively considering the facts that the petitioner is joining and co-

operating in the investigation, he is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent

resident of the place, his custody is not at all required by the police, nothing is to be recovered from him, considering the fact that the petitioner is

ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all

required by the police, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and

without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the

event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his

arrest, in case FIR No. 101 of 2020, dated 27.06.2020, under Sections 353, 186, 188, 269, 270, 504 and 506 IPC, registered in Police Station Paonta

Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- (rupees

twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following

conditions:

(i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.