Santosh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP (M) No. 159 of 2012, Cr.MP (M) No. 160 of 2012 and Cr.MP (M) No. 161 of 2012 which have been filed by Santosh Kumar, Parmod Kumar alias Sanju and Ram Gopal, respectively for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 33 of 2012 dated 21.2.2012 registered at Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla-5, under Sections 427, 506, 34 IPC read with Sections 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the petitioners are present in the Court today and they have been identified as such. The marriage in Village Shillru was fixed in the house of one Gokul on 29.1.2012. The petitioners were also invitees in that marriage. The petitioner Santosh Kumar was working as Cook for preparation and serving of the food in the marriage. Gopal S/o Om Parkash complainant also attended the marriage. Om Parkash complainant was not present in the marriage.

The case has been got registered against the petitioners on the allegations that when Gopal was present in the marriage, the petitioners picked up quarrel with Gopal and they also used caste words against him. The petitioners threatened Gopal with dire consequences. It has been stated that allegations against the petitioners are false. The case has been got registered by the complainant to harass the petitioners. The complainant submitted an application to the police but in inquiry, nothing was found against the petitioners. However by exerting influence now, the complainant has got registered the case against the petitioners. It has been submitted that Parmod Kumar petitioner himself is a Harijan. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court.

The status report has been filed in Cr.MP (M) No. 159 of 2012. In the status report it has been stated that the complainant has stated that he was given beatings but during investigation it has come that beatings were not given to the complainant but beatings were given to his son Gopal on 29.1.2012. The petitioners are from higher caste. The threats were given by the petitioners. The petitioners called the other side by caste words. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners have given beatings to Gopal and abused him and when his wife Seema tried to save him, even she was pushed. They called Gopal by caste words. It has been stated that investigation in the case is almost complete but caste certificates of the parties are to be collected. The petitioners have joined the investigation.

Heard and perused the record. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 29.1.2012 they gave beatings to Gopal son of the complainant. They also pushed Seema wife of Gopal when she intervened to save her husband. The petitioners called Gopal by caste words and even threatened him. It has been stated that petitioners have joined the investigation and no recovery is to be made from them. The investigation in the case is almost complete, only caste certificates are to be collected. In the status report nothing has been stated that for any purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C.

In view of above, all the petitions being Cr.MP (M) Nos. 159, 160 and 161 of 2012 are allowed. All the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 33 of 2012 dated 21.2.2012 registered at Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla-5, under Sections 427, 506, 34 IPC read with Sections 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court which shall be furnished during the course of the day today, failing which the petitioners shall be taken into custody, with the conditions that the petitioners shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner nor shall terrorize or overawe the prosecution witnesses.

The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petitions only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.