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

2014 Supreme(HP) 1661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
P.S. RANA, J.
Farooq Bhutto son of Shri Z.A. Bhutto - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr.MP (M) No. 1271 of 2014
Decided on : 11-12-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant:Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate
For the Non-applicant:Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General with Mr.J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the need to secure the accused's appearance at trial, and the considerations for granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 307, 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code - The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of the evidence, and the possibility of the accused's presence at the trial or investigation. It also referred to legal provisions and case laws to support the decision to grant anticipatory bail.

Fact of the Case:

The bail application was filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 307, 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police report detailed the incident and the injuries sustained by the complainant, along with the accused's previous criminal cases.

Finding of the Court:

The court accepted the bail application, considering that the accused had joined the investigation, no recovery was to be effected, and the trial would be completed in due course of time. It also emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need to secure the appearance of the accused at trial.

Issues: The determination of whether the anticipatory bail application should be accepted and the final order for granting bail were the key issues addressed by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the offense, character of the evidence, and the accused's cooperation in the investigation. It also relied on legal principles related to bail, the presumption of innocence, and the need to secure the accused's appearance at trial.

Final Decision: The bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail with specific terms and conditions.

JUDGMENT :

P.S. Rana, Judge.

Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 175 of 2014 dated 28.8.2014 registered under Sections 307, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at P.S. Sadar District Bilaspur (HP).

2. It is pleaded that investigation is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and further pleaded that applicant will join the investigation as and when required by police. It is further pleaded that bail application filed by applicant be allowed.

3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report FIR No. 175 of 2014 dated 28.8.2014 registered under Sections 307, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Sadar District Bilaspur (H.P.) against the applicant. There is recital in police report that on dated 28.8.2014 Mohender Pal complainant along with his friend Rajesh went to Luhnu ground and at about 6.15 PM in the evening complainant and his friend thought for boating. There is further recital in police report that thereafter vehicle having registration No. HP-69A-0973 came and accused persons talked with the complainant and his friend Rajesh and enquired about name and address of complainant. There is further recital in police report that thereafter complainant demanded pen from the accused persons and told that he would write his name and address and thereafter one of co-accused caught hold the complainant and other co-accused inflicted injuries upon the head and left leg of complainant with baseball. There is further recital in police report that blood oozed out from the head of complainant and complainant also sustained incised injuries in his left leg. There is further recital in police report that after inflicting the injuries both accused persons fled from the place of incident by using the abusive and insulting language and also threatened the complainant. There is recital in police report that medical examination of injured was got conducted in Regional Hospital Bilaspur and MLC obtained. There is recital in police report that site plan was also prepared and statements of prosecution witnesses were also recorded. There is further recital in police report that injured remained as indoor patient in the hospital w.e.f. 28.8.2014 to 1.9.2014. There is further recital in police report that blood clotted T-shirt and vehicle having registration No. HP-69A-0973 were took into possession. There is further recital in police report that as per opinion of medical officer injury No. 1 sustained by the injured was grievous in nature and said injury was dangerous to life. There is further recital in police report that baseball and bat were also recovered vide seizure memo and as per opinion of medical officer injuries No. 1 and 2 could be inflicted with baseball and bat. There is further recital in police report that another FIR No. 47 of 2007 dated 24.2.2007 was registered against the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 341, 504 and 506 IPC at P.S. Ghumarwin and applicant has been acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court- 3 Ghumarwin on dated 4.10.2012 and there is further recital in police report that another FIR No. 87 of 2014 dated 8.5.2014 is registered against the applicant under Sections 451, 323, 325 and 506 IPC in P.S. Ghumarwin which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghumarwin. There is recital in police report that if applicant is released on bail then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witnesses and will also destroy the evidence. Prayer for rejection of bail application is sought.

4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record.

5. Following points arise for determination in this anticipatory bail application:-

1. Whether the anticipato

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