SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(HP) 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
Anil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 57 of 2020
Decided On : 08-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Gobind Karla, Advocate, Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate, P.K. Bhatti, Advocate, Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate

Granting bail under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires consideration of the purpose of continued custody and the likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

Headnote:

Bail - Negotiable Instruments Act - The court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, considering that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars and that he was unlikely to flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He claimed to be falsely implicated and unaware of the complaint due to medical treatment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that keeping the petitioner in custody for an unlimited period would serve no purpose and granted bail with specific conditions.

Issues: The issue revolved around the petitioner's request for bail despite not appearing before the trial court and the opposing argument from the Additional Advocate General.

Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to grant bail based on the lack of purpose in continued custody, the petitioner's unlikely flight from justice, and the absence of tampering with evidence.

Final Decision: The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and surety, subject to specific conditions, and disposed of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present petition has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Complaint Case No.195/3 of 2016, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. As per the petitioner, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was pending against him before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., wherein the present petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter to be called as 'the Complainant').

3. That the petitioner was not having any knowledge with regard to the same and he was also not medically fit and he was getting his treatment from the hospital. Consequently, as the petitioner was served on some wrong address, he was not knowing about the service. Hence, he could not appear before the Court below and thus, nonbailable warrants were issued on 17.12.2019 and he is in the custudy till date.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this case, the petitioner be released on bail, as no purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner is not appearing before the learned Trial Court despite having issued summons against him and he be not released on bail.

6. This Court finds that the case is pending against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. Neither he will flee from justice nor tamper with the prosecution evidence. So, it is orderd that he be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with one surety in the like amount in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan/JMIC, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:

    (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required.

      (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

        (iii) That the petitioner will 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 Investigating Officer or Court.

        7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

          Copy dasti.

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top