Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
P.S. Rana, J.
Usha Massand - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Non-petitioner
Cr.MP(M) No. 1099 of 2015
Decided On : 14.8.2015
Anticipatory Bail - Family Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438
Fact of the Case:
The bail application was filed for anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal complaint under Section 406 IPC. The complainant alleged that the accused persons took gold, cash, and other articles from the house after the death of the complainant's mother, leading to a family dispute over ancestral property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the determination of the innocence of the petitioner and the criminal offense alleged in the FIR cannot be decided at the bail stage. However, considering the nature of the offense, the character of the evidence, and the family dispute over ancestral property, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the acceptance of the anticipatory bail application and the determination of whether the conditions imposed by the court would be binding upon the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, and the circumstances peculiar to the accused in granting anticipatory bail. It also emphasized that the dispute between the parties was a family dispute relating to ancestral property, and the interest of the state and the public would not be adversely affected by granting bail.
Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner was allowed, and the interim order was made absolute. The observations made in the order were strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
P.S. Rana, J.
Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.36 of 2015 dated 25.6.2015 registered under Section 406 IPC at P.S. Kasauli District Solan (H.P.)
2. It is pleaded that petitioner is real sister of complainant Raj Kishore Gupta son of late Shri Dhani Ram Gupta presently residing at 224 Sector 15 Chandigarh. It is pleaded that complainant did not have good relations with his mother and she was looked after by petitioner and her husband Anand Mussand. It is pleaded that after death of mother of petitioner complainant who is an influenced person wanted to grab the entire ancestral property. It is pleaded that Raj Kishore Gupta complainant filed a false complaint against the petitioner and her husband Anand Mussand that accused persons took 1½ Kg. gold and Rs. 16 lacs (Rupees sixteen lacs only) cash and other articles from the house. It is pleaded that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence. It is pleaded that petitioner will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought.
3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report on dated 25.6.2015 complainant Raj Kishore Gupta son of late Shri D.R. Gupta resident of village Shaktighat P.O. Jubbar Tehsil Kasauli District Solan came in police station and presented criminal complaint against accused persons. There is further recital in police report that father of complainant died in the year 2006 and complainant has one sister. There is recital in police report that father of complainant was posted in education department and retired as Principal. There is recital in police report that Usha co-accused No. 2 is residing at Delhi. There is recital in police report that complainant Raj Kishore Gupta has business at Chandigarh and he is residing in Chandigarh along with his family members. There is further recital in police report that mother of complainant died in hospital on dated 5.4.2015. There is recital in police report that after death of mother of complainant conversation took place between complainant and accused persons relating to division of ancestral property. There is further recital in police report that both accused persons namely Anand Massand and Usha quarrelled with complainant and thereafter accused persons went to Delhi. There is further recital in police report that on dated 18.7.2015 complainant and accused persons were talking about division of ancestral property and when complainant went to his another residential room for some time in the meanwhile both accused persons namely Anand and Usha took golden jewellary and FDRs in vehicle No. PB-10CU-9379. There is recital in police report that complainant tried to call back the accused persons but accused persons did not response. There is recital in police report that golden articles and FDRs are still to be recovered from accused persons. Prayer for dismissal of anticipatory bail application sought.
4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record.
5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:-
1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application?
2. Final Order.
Findings on Point No.1
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence as mentioned in FIR cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.
7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that any condition impo
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
