Het Ram vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application, u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the Petitioner on bail in FIR No. 106 of 2011, registered at Police Station, Karsog on 31.7.2011, under Sections 379, 336, 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The status report has been filed and record perused.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner thatPetitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent and has committed no offence. It has also been stated that no recovery is to be made from the Petitioner. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in view of registration of FIR No. 106 of 2011 at Police Station, Karsog. The Petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for bail, u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure to the Petitioner.

The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that case has been registered on the basis of statement, u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure of Umesh Kumar, who noticed that JCB operator was illegally stacking sand and aggregate at one place and with the help of JCB HP 30A-3031 loading the same in the tippers on the directions ofPetitioner. The JCB has damaged the road by cutting. The said road is the approach road for the hotel of the complainant. The learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

I have heard the learned Counsel of either side. In the status report, it has been stated that JCB has been taken into possession alongwith key and documents. The accused Chaman Lal Operator of JCB was arrested on 1.8.2011, who has been released on bail on 2.8.2011 by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karsog. The Petitioner has made disclosure statement and on the basis of that statement 40 tipper loads of sand have been recovered. The material has been handed over to one forest guard Roop Ram on sapurdari. It has been stated in the status report that no recovery is to be made from the Petitioner. An apprehension has been shown that ifPetitioner is released on bail, then he may terrorise the prosecution witnesses and win over them and commit the same offence again.

The learned Addl. Advocate General has relied the statement of Prem Lal, u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and has stated thatPetitioner had taken his JBC on rent for extraction of sand alongwith tipper owned by Prem Lal. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General thatPetitioner has illegally extracted sand and aggregate owned by the government and has committed serious offence. The recovery has already been made by the investigating agency. In the status report, it has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has personal enmity with Umesh Kumar, who lodged the false complaint against him. Umesh Kumar had earlier lodged false complaint against the Petitioner, which was found baseless. The apprehension of prosecution thatPetitioner may win over, terrorise the prosecution witnesses in case he is released on bail is without foundation. Similarly the apprehension of prosecution thatPetitioner will repeat the offence is not supported by evidence of past conduct ofPetitioner whether in past also he has committed such offence.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied thatPetitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner in case FIR No. 106 of 2011, registered at Police Station, Karsog on 31.7.2011, under Sections 379, 336, 34 Indian Penal Code, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer with the conditions thatPetitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner nor terrorise the prosecution witnesses.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case.