Gian Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

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. 105 of 2019, dated 30.10.2019, under Sections 379 and 411 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Arki, District Solan, 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 permanent resident of District Shimla 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 report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on Shri Rajinder Thakur, Contractor (complainant) made a written complaint to the police wherein he alleged that he was awarded some work by HPPWD Arki Division, so he started that work. He has further alleged that 35-40 iron palettes, which were kept on the spot for construction work, were stolen by someone and the value of the said palettes is approximately Rs.70,000/-Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police visited the spot, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police got a secret information that during the night of 7/8.10.2019 a truck was found roaming and the registration No. of that truck is HP09A-3415. The said truck was found to be registered on the name of Shri Mansa Ram, resident of Theog and the same is used to be driven by Shri Sachin, who is son of Shri Mansa Ram. It has further come in the police investigation that on 7/8.10.2019 the truck was taken on rent by the petitioner, one Rahul and Rohit, who loaded iron palettes at Galog and sold the same to a junk dealer at Bilaspur. Police traced one Vishal, who is junk dealer at Bilaspur and has been arrested in FIR No. 90 of 2019, dated 07.11.2019, registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of the investigation co-accused Vishal divulged that he purchased the 35 iron palettes from one Sachin, who was accompanied by two more persons. Upon the identification of accused Vishal, police recovered 35 iron palettes.

Police prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Co-accused Vishal was arrested and later on enlarged on bail. During further course of investigation driver of the truck divulged that the petitioner made him and his relatives Rahul and Rohit sit in his car and they inspected the spot of stealing. Later on, they committed theft of the iron palettes, which were sold to co-accused Vishal. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious crime, he is very clever person. 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 application be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, 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 permanent resident of District Shimla and joining and co-operating in the investigation. He has argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, as nothing is to be recovered at his instance, 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 permanent resident of District Shimla and neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, as he is resident of the place and joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact that recovery of all the iron palettes have already been effected, the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the allegations, which have come on record, 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. 105 of 2019, dated 30.10.2019, under Sections 379 and 411 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five 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.