Nirmal Singh vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner approaches this Court u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that directions be issued for his release on bail. It is undisputed before me that the Petitioner had filed another petition being Cr.M.P.(M) No. 531 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court on 19.6.2010.

Petitioner now submits that since the challan has been filed, there is no evidence worth the name against him and that his continuous detention is neither required nor is it warranted by law.

It is undisputed before me that the Petitioner is now in judicial custody. It is also a fact that on 1.4.2010, the application for bail filed by the Petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-(II), Kangra at Dharamshala was rejected on the ground that the investigation was in progress and that the offence is of a very grave nature. Subsequent thereto also, this Court had declined bail as investigation was in progress. The charge sheet has now been filed and extensive arguments have been addressed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the admissibility of the evidence against the Petitioner which according to him consists of nothing but bald accusation by the other co-accused. I am not going into those facts nor am I pronouncing on the validity of the accusation. However, it is established from the investigation that prima facie nothing was recovered from the Petitioner or from his house which was raided. His involvement is only to the extent that he is accused of having supplied the counterfeit currency notes to the other accused. That is a matter of determination on evidence during trial. However, prima facie at this stage what is required to be considered is whether his continued detention is conducive for a fair trial or that he has a propensity either to interfere with the evidence or to hamper the smooth progress of the trial. I have not found any allegation on the record or material to this effect nor is there any indication that the Petitioner has infact indulged in such activities. The petition is accordingly allowed. The Petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions :

(i) That the Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-with one surety in the like amount, who should be a resident of Himachal, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.

(ii) That the Petitioner shall join further investigation, if so required and so directed.

(iii) That the Petitioner will not in any manner overawe, influence or terrorize the prosecution witnesses nor tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever directly or indirectly.

(iv) That the Petitioner will undertake to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing unless so exempted by the learned trial Court in accordance with law and will not obstruct the smooth progress of the trial.

(v) That the Petitioners shall also undertake to report and shall report to the Police Station, Kangra, once in every 15 days. If that day happens to be the date of trial where the presence of the Petitioner is required in Court, he shall report on the next succeeding day.

It will be open to the prosecution to ask for addition/alteration, if any, of the terms and conditions of this order.

It will also be open to the learned trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the Petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

It is clarified that in case of breach of any of these conditions, the Petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith without reference to Court.

This petition is disposed of.