Rajbir Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Piar Singh Rana, J.—Present petition filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 54 of 2014 dated 23.4.2014 registered under Sections 420 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gagret, District Una Himachal Pradesh.

It is pleaded that applicants were took into custody on 14.5.2014 and since then applicants are in custody. It is further pleaded that investigation is almost complete and nothing is to be recovered from the applicants and the applicants undertake to join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. It is further pleaded that story of exchange of ATM card is a false allegation. It is further pleaded that liberty of the applicants has been curtailed by detaining them in jail without having found guilty and prayer for acceptance of bail application sought.

Per contra police report filed. There is recital in police report that FIR No. 54 of 2014 dated 23.4.2014 has been registered against the applicants under Sections 420 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Gagret, District Una HP. There is recital in police report that on dated 23.4.2014 the statement of complainant Smt. Vijay Jaswal wife of Sh Satvir Singh Jaswal village and post office Sukali Tehsil Amb District Una was recorded u/s 154 Cr PC. There is further recital in police report that complainant Smt. Vijay Jaswal is posted as Librarian since 18 years in Government Senior Secondary School Daulatpur Chowk. There is further recital in police report that complainant Smt. Vijay Jaswal wife of Sh Satvir Singh Jaswal has opened an account in State Bank of Patiala. There is further recital in police report that on dated 25.3.2014 complainant Smt. Vijay Jaswal received a message upon her mobile No. 98057-66466 that Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) was withdrawn from her saving account through ATM card. There is further recital in police report that on dated 26.3.2014 complainant Smt. Vijay Jaswal again received a telephonic message that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand) was withdrawn from her account No. 55096407493. Complainant Smt. Vijay Jaswal further informed that within two days an amount of Rs. 70,000/- (Seventy thousand) withdrawn through ATM card and theft was committed qua money balance of the complainant. There is further recital in police report that complainant has closed her ATM account on dated 26.3.2014. There is further recital in police report that complainant further informed that on 25.3.2014 her ATM card was got exchanged. There is further recital in police report that Smt. Renu Sharma who is a friend of the complainant could identify the persons who have exchanged the ATM card of the complainant. There is further recital in police report that a case was registered and investigation was conducted. There is further recital in police report that site plan was prepared and statements of the prosecution witnesses were also recorded. The statements of the accused persons u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were also recorded. There is further recital in police report that challan has already been filed against the accused persons in Court on dated 8.7.2014. There is further recital in police report that accused persons are residents of Haryana and they would threaten the prosecution witness. Prayer for rejection of bail application sought.

Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicants and Court also heard learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant.

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in present case cannot be decided at this stage till criminal case is not disposed of finally by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.

Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants that no investigation is to be required in present case and challan has already been filed in the competent criminal court of law against the applicants and the case will be disposed of in due course of time and in view of the above stated facts applicants be released on bail is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), . Also see The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh, . It was held in case reported in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial and it was held that object of bail is not punitive in nature. It was held that bail is rule and committal to jail is exception. It was held that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Court is of the opinion that investigation has been completed in present case and trial will be concluded in due course of time and it is not expedient in the ends of justice to keep the applicants in jail till the conclusion of trial. Court is of the opinion that if the applicants are released on bail at this stage then interests of the general public or the State will not be adversely effected.

Submission of learned Deputy Advocate General that applicants are residents of Haryana and they will obstruct the trial of the case if they released on bail is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that conditional bail will be granted to the applicants and condition will be imposed in the bail order that applicants will not threat the prosecution witness and will not obstruct the trial of the present case in any manner. If applicants will flout terms and conditions of bail order then non-applicant will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

In view of the above stated facts the bail application filed by the applicants u/s 439 Cr. P.C. is allowed and applicants are ordered to be released on bail on following terms and conditions on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court each. (i) That applicants will join investigation of present case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That applicants 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 the Court or to any police officer. (iii) That applicants will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv) That applicants will not obstruct the proceedings of learned trial Court and will attend proceedings of learned trial Court regularly. (v) That applicants will not commit similar offence qua which they are accused. (vi) That applicants will give their residential address to the Investigating Officer in written manner. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of the case in any manner. Bail application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.