Amandeep Singh vs State of H.P.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail in case FIR No. 102 of 2011, dated 21.04.2011 under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

Sequel to order dated 24.07.2017, ASI Satpal Sharma, Police Station, Sadar, District Una, has come present alongwith record of the case. Mr. P.M.Negi, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.

On 24.07.2017, this Court had passed an interim order, whereby it was directed that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date.

Perusal of the status report as well as record, clearly suggest that FIR No.102 of 2011, dated 21.4.2011 came to be registered at Police station Sadar, District Una, under Sections 379, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the persons namely Yashpal, Simranjeet, Sunil kumar and Amandeep (present petitioner) on the complaint having been made by Sh. Vimal Parkash, who alleged that his motorcycle bearing No. HP-20B-4222 (pulsar) was stolen by aforesaid persons. It also emerge from the record that after completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court No.4, Una, District Una, H.P, but since bail petitioner failed to put in appearance before that court, he was declared proclaimed offender. It also emerge from the record that co-accused namely Yashpal stands discharged.

Mr. P.M.Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this court to the status report fairly conceded that bail petitioner in terms of the order dated 24.7.2017 has joined the investigation and nothing is required to be recovered from him, but since he has been declared proclaimed offender by the learned Court below, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate, stated that since the bail petitioner was out of country, he was unable to put in appearance before the learned Court below and as such, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been already filed in this Court for quashing and setting aside the FIR, as referred above, as well as proclamation order issued by the learned trial Court. He also made available copy of petition bearing No. CRMMO No.280 of 2017, which is pending adjudication.

Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

After having gone through the record as well as submissions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court deems it fit to release the bail petitioner on bail subject to the condition that he shall surrender himself before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.4, Una on 5th August, 2017, who after recording his presence, shall release him subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

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. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.

Copy dasti.