Sandeep Kumar Alias Sonu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, petitioner is seeking his release on bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as

the Code) in case FIR No. 34/2020, dated 1.2.2020, registered at Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 454, 380

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In support of his case, the petitioner has submitted that he has been falsely implicated and has nothing to do with the offences in question. The

petitioner has undertaken to join the investigation and further is ready and willing to furnish appropriate personal and surety bonds. He has further

submitted not to hamper or tamper with the investigation, in any manner.

On notice, respondent has filed status report, which reveals that the petitioner is accused of the offence alleged to have been committed on

01.02.2020 in the house of the complainant, whereby, theft of valuable jewellery was made after committed house breaking. The petitioner is alleged

to have been accompanied by other co-accused having common intention to commit said offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner could be

arrested only on 08.04.2021, he remained in police custody till 12.04.2021 and thereafter remanded to judicial custody. Petitioner is stated to be

habitual offender. It is alleged that he is accused in similar case under Sections 380, 454 of the Indian Penal Code, in case, registered vide FIR No.

6/2020, dated 8. 01.2020 at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. and is facing trial. He is also alleged to be an accused in case under

Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is also stated to have been convicted twice under the provisions of Gambling Act at

Jawalamkhi, District Kangra, H.P. and fined Rs. 50/- on each occasion. Challan is stated to have been filed against the petitioner, which is pending in

the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State. The petitioner is in custody since 08.04.2021.

The fact that challan has been presented against him evidences the fact that the investigation qua him is complete. There is nothing on record to

suggest that the petitioner is assessory, in any manner, in non-apprehension of other co-accused by the police. The nature of offences under the

Gambling Act or under Sections 379, 304 A of Indian Penal Code with which petitioner has been charged on previous occasions are in no way akin to

the offence involved in the present case. The fact that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in another case vide FIR No. 06/2020, dated

08.01.2020, under Sections 454, 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. can not be taken to be

a sole factor to keep the petitioner in custody for prolonged duration as the guilt, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be proved in the cases against him.

In Dattaram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another( 2018) Vol III SCC page-22, it has been held as under:-

There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial

discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally

there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

xxx xxx xxx

To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused

person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor

that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social

and other problems as noticed by this Court in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.

The respondent has not been able to place on record any material to show that in case of petitioner being enlarged on bail, he shall not be available

for the trial or shall be an impediment in completion thereof. It comes out from the details of the status report itself that in the present case petitioner

was arrested by police on the date when he had visited the Court premises at Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. to attend the hearing of a case pending

against him in pursuance of FIR No. 6/2020. This shows that the petitioner is attending the hearing of the other case, as detailed above.

The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Drang, Post Office Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. and there is no real apprehension of his

absconding or fleeing from the course of justice. In the facts of the case further incarceration of petitioner is not justified.

The bail petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 34/2020, dated 01.02.2020, registered at Police

Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject, however, to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not intentionally cause any delay in its conclusion.

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in

relation to the facts of the case in hand.

iii) Petitioner shall be liable for immediate arrest in the instant case in the event of petitioner violating the conditions of this bail.

The application stands disposed of.

Copy Dasti.