Sanyog Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

Bail petitioner namely Sanyog Kumar, who is behind the bars since 30.10.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.123 of 2021, dated 13.10.2021 under Sections 353, 333, 307, 397 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P.

Pursuant to order dated 20.5.2022, respondent-State has filed status report and Investigating Officer has also come present with record.

Record perused and returned. Close scrutiny of status report as well as record made available to this Court reveals that while informant/complainant along with other HHC Hem Raj of Thana Barotiala were on patrolling in their beat at Jharmajri on 13.10.2021, at about 3 A.M., they received information from security guard of Ginny and Johny Company, Jharmajri that some unknown persons have unauthorizedly entered in the premises of the company. Two police officials reached on the spot and when they tried to stop the persons entered in the premises of Ginny and Johny Company, Jharmajri unauthorizedly, one of the person hit informant/complainant with a sharp edged weapon, as a consequence of which, he suffered simple as well as grievous injuries on his head/parietal region, as a consequence of which, he remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. During investigation, police with the help of CCTV cameras installed in the area, found that Car bearing No. CH01AG-4938, being owned by Jai Mangal was used in the alleged accident. Jai Mangal during investigation revealed that he along with persons namely present bail petitioner Sanyog @ Bihari, Neeraj @ Katta, Ankush Sudhanshu and Bharat @ Kaku, had planned to steal a transformer from the company in question. Though above-named persons had got the transformer fallen from the platform, but before they could take it away, police reached the spot and they made an attempt to flee from the spot. While informant/complainant tried to catch hold of the person namely Neeraj @ Katta, he gave him blow of sharp edged cutter on his parietal region, as a consequence of which, he fell down and was taken to hospital. Though initially informant/ complainant was taken to CHC, Jharmajri, but from there, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted for some time. Now above-named person stands discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger. Since, investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, learned Assistant Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the present bail petitioner, but since one of the co- accused Ankush, is yet to be arrested, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, who in the event of his being enlarged on bail, not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. While making this Court to peruse the status report with record, Mr. Dhatwalia further submits that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record that present bail petitioner took active participation in the alleged crime and as such, it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that though persons namely Sanyog @ Bihari (bail petitioner), Neeraj @ Katta, Ankush, Sudhanshu and Jai Mangal had unauthorizedly entered into the premises of Ginny and Johny Company Company situate at Jharmajri, Barotiwala, for stealing transformer, but before they could steal the same, police reached the spot and all the accused fled away from the spot. As per status report, person namely Neeraj @ Katta while fleeing from the spot, gave a blow of sharp edged weapon on a parietal region of the informer/complainant, as consequence of which, he suffered grievous injuries. Though, as per investigation present bail petitioner had also gone to Ginny and Johny Company, Jharmajri for stealing transformer, but there is no specific allegation against him that he gave a blow of a sharp edged weapon on the head of informer/complainant, rather it has been categorically stated in the status report that blow with the sharp edged weapon on the parietal region of informer/complainant was given by person namely Neeraj @ Katta. Though, Learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently argued that present bail petitioner was an active participant in the alleged crime, but such fact is yet to be established on record by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence. All the accused including present bail petitioner have been named on the basis of CCTV footage or on the basis of statement of one of the co-accused Jai Mangal, whose car bearing No. CH01AG-4938 was seen coming from Shivalik Nagar to Baddi side at the time of alleged incident. Needless to say, statement of co-accused, if any, made under Section 27 of Indian Evidence with regard to involvement of other co-accused is inadmissible. Though, information with regard to unauthorized entry of accused named hereinabove, was given by the security guard of the company, but there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that security guards identified any of the accused. Informant/complainant, who had gone along with police on the spot, could only see person namely Neeraj alias Katta because by that time, other accused had succeeded in fleeing from the spot and as such, it would be too premature, at this stage to conclude the complicity of the bail petitioner in the alleged crime. Involvement, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial. There is nothing in the status report/record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner in past had been indulging in such like activities and as such, he otherwise being first offender deserves some leniency. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting him to stringent conditions.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. 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.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000- with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the 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 petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

A downloaded copy of this order shall suffice for the learned trial Court to accept the bail bonds/surety from the bail petitioner and in case the learned Court below intends to verify the authenticity of the order placed before it on behalf of the bail petitioner, it can do so by verifying the same from the official website of this Court.