Krishan Kant vs State of Himachal Pradesh

By way of instant bail petition filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made for grant of bail in case FIR No. 346/17 dated 12.10.2017, under Section 279, 304AA IPC registered at Police Station, Una, Himachal Pradesh.

Sequel to orders dated 31.10.2017, ASI Khem Singh has come present in Court alongwith the record of the case. Mr. PM 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. Record perused and returned.

Facts, as emerge from the record as well as status report suggest that aforesaid FIR came to be registered against bail petition at the behest of complainant Satish Kumar, who alleged that on 12.10.2017, at around 12.20 PM, when he was going towards Mehatpur, in his own vehicle, truck being driven by the bail petitioner came at a high speed and hit victim Madhu, who at the relevant time was driving Scooty. Driver of truck, who allegedly caused grievous injury to the victim Madhu was under the influence of liquor. It also emerges from the record that unfortunately victim died in the accident.

Mr. Sunny Modgil, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner submits that since investigation in this case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner at this stage and as such he is entitled to be released on bail. Mr. Modgil, further contended that bail petitioner is local resident of area and shall be always available for investigation and thereafter for trial and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice.

Mr. P.M. Negi, Additional Advocate General, while opposing aforesaid prayer having been made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner, contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence allegedly committed by bail petitioner, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Mr. Negi further submitted that in the event of petitioner being released on bail, he may influence or coerce the witnesses who are yet to depose before trial Court. However, Mr. Negi, stated that if this Court intends to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, he may be directed to render full cooperation in the investigation as well as during the trial.

This Court, after having perused the record, sees no reason to keep the bail petitioner in the custody, more particularly when he is already in custody since 12.10.2017. Investigation is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from bail petitioner as has been fairly contended by Mr. P.M. Negi, Additional Advocate General, as such, this Court sees no reason to allow petitioner to incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, especially when his guilt is yet to be proved by the investigating agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, 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. Petitioner is local resident of the place mentioned in the application and he shall remain available to face the trial and to undergo imprisonment, if any, imposed upon him.

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.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, with following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

Copy dasti.