Devinder Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in case FIR No. 22 of 2022 dated 2.2.2022, registered in Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla H.P. under Sections 379, 411, 414 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’)

2 Status report stands filed and record was also made available.

As per status report, on 2.2.2022, on receiving a complaint from Mamta Kumari, Junior Engineer, Sub Division-II, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 stating therein that steel worth Rs.3,50,000/- had been stolen from HIMUDA Divisional Store site Sanjauli during Sunday midnight, FIR was registered under Section 379 IPC and investigation was carried on.

4 On the basis of CCTV footage installed at Sanjauli and on various roads, at different points, police was able to identify and trace the truck used for theft. Petitioner is owner of the said truck. On further inquiry, it was found that petitioner had sold steel (saria)/iron bars to co-accused Tika Ram and Rakesh. The saria in possession of co-accused was identified as the same, which was stolen from Sanjauli. It was taken in possession. Truck was also taken in possession.

5 During interrogation, petitioner had disclosed that prior to 30th/31st January, 2022 also, he along with co-accused Devender Kumar @ Bobby, Sanjeev Chauhan and another person Lala had committed the theft of iron bars from Housing Board colony and sold the same at Shilaru to co-accused Vijay Shyam @ Guddu. At the instance of co-accused Vijay Shyam, police recovered 18 bundles of iron bars covered by bamboos kept near the house of Vijay Shyam.

6 Petitioner, earlier, had approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla seeking anticipatory bail by filing Bail Application No. 30 of 2022 on 15.2.2022. However, interim bail granted to petitioner was rejected vide order dated 3.3.2022 on the ground that investigation, at that time, was at initial stage and two other co-accused persons namely Jassi Ram and Kamlesh were yet to be interrogated and bail petitioner was considered as a habitual offender. At that time, it was also reported in status report that petitioner was not handing over his mobile and SIM used during commission of offence.

7 Thereafter, petitioner filed present petition on 25th March, 2022 and after grant of interim bail, he joined the investigation again. As per status report, petitioner has handed over his mobile and SIM used at the time of commission of offence, which has been taken in possession and he has also disclosed complete name and address of person namely Kamlesh who is to be interrogated and now no further interrogation of petitioner is required and nothing is to be recovered from him.

8 Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that all co-accused in present case have been enlarged on bail by granting either regular bail after their arrest or confirming their interim bail after joining investigation and completion of their interrogation and, therefore, it has been prayed and petitioner is also entitled for bail on parity as he is no more required for interrogation and his custody shall serve no fruitful purpose.

9 Under instructions, 4 learned Additional Advocate General submits that custodial interrogation of petitioner is not warranted at this stage, but he can influence the witnesses in case he is enlarged on bail.

10 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed upon him at the time of granting bail and to furnish bail bonds and sureties as directed by Court and not to indulge in any activity amounting to misuse the bail.

11 It has been further submitted on behalf of petitioner that now investigation is almost complete and there is change in circumstances and therefore, grounds on which earlier bail application was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge are not existing at present as now petitioner has also handed over his mobile and SIM to Investigating Officer and has also disclosed complete name and address of co-accused Kamlesh.

12 Without commenting upon the merits of case, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking note of the factors and parameters, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, as propounded in various pronouncements of the Courts, I am of the opinion that at this stage petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case.

13 Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and also subject to any further conditions to be imposed by trial Court for assuring his presence during trial including the following further conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during the investigation as well as trial on each and every date as and when required;

(iii) That the petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. She shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(v) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station;

(vi) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which she is suspected;

(vii) In the event of repetition of commission of offence, bail granted in present case shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution/police;

(viii) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of Court;

(ix) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

14 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also be open to the trial Court/Magistrate to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

15 In case the petitioner 7violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

16 Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013.

17 Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, they may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

Petition stands disposed of.

Dasti copy on usual terms.