IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Balwant Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No.201 of 2024
Decided on : 05-04-2024
Bail - Pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - Sections 447, 379, 378, 441, 34 of IPC
Fact of the Case:
The bail petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for a case originating from an FIR registered under Sections 447, 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, alleging illicit felling of trees from government land. The petitioner denied trespassing and offered to join the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the statutory provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and relevant offences under IPC. It considered the nature of the crime, the accused's status, and the possibility of influencing witnesses. The court found that the accusations were not prima facie made out against the petitioner and granted pre-arrest bail, subject to conditions.
Issues: Examination of statutory provisions, nature of the accusations, and the accused's entitlement to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the parameters for granting bail as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and the accused's likelihood to abscond or tamper with evidence.
Final Decision: The bail petition was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner was made absolute, subject to specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
The bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] has come up before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’] originating from the FIR No.0027, dated 25.02.2023, registered under Section 447, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] with Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur [H.P.].
2. The case as set up by Mr. Mohit Thakur, learned counsel is that the false complaint was made by one Sh. Dharam Chand allegedly felling of trees from the Government land and the status of the said land is in dispute qua its ownership and possession also. It is also averred that the petitioner is a pensioner, suffering from heart ailment and is 76 years of age. It is also averred that the petitioner had never trespassed into the aforesaid land. The petitioner has given the undertaking in the bail application that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and shall not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence in any manner. It is also averred that FIR No.0027, dated 25.02.2023, was registered about a year back and since then the petitioner has never been called or associated by the police authorities, for investigation into the said offences.
3. Upon issuance of notice on 13.02.2024 and the grant of interim bail, this Court directed the respondent to file the status report. Thereafter the matter was listed on 28.02.2024 when, the State Authorities have filed the status report dated 28.02.2024 on the instructions of SHO Bhoranj, District Hamirpur [H.P.] Thereafter the matter was again listed on 07.03.2024 when, another status report dated 07.03.2024 on the instructions of SHO Bhoranj, District Hamirpur [H.P.] was taken on record. The first status report dated 28.02.2024 and the second status report dated 07.03.2024 are pari materia containing similar averments.
4. A perusal of the status reports dated 28.02.2024 and 07.03.2024 reveal that though the FIR No.0027, dated 25.02.2023 was registered against the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] alleging illicit felling of trees from government land in Village Lathwan i.e. from Khasra No.162. However, the status report reveals the alleged felling was undertaken in Khasra Nos.784, 913, 914, 916 and 943, which though are Shamilat Land but the same is termed as “Gair Marusi” in possession of one Vijay Puri Chela of Ameed Puri. The status report further reveals that as per the report of Range Forest Officer, seventy trees have been felled from the aforesaid land comprising in Khasra Nos.784, 913, 914, 916 and 943, as referred to above. It has also come in the status report that the trees have been felled at the instance of Mahatama-Swami [Raviwan], who is the caretaker of the old Jhangi Mahadev Temple at Lathwan in District Hamirpur [H.P.]. The status report further reveals that the aforesaid Mahatma, namely Baba Raviwan and one Besari Lal were arrested on 09.02.2024 and thereafter both these persons were enlarged on bail by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 12.02.2024. The status report further reveals that the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] is a retired Government employee and after retirement he has resorted to the trade of Timber from the year 2010 and thereafter for some time the aforesaid timber business was stopped and again restored by the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] from the year 2018 till day. It is further averred in the status report that the timber allegedly cut and sold, is yet to be recovered. It is further stated in the status report that the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh] is participating in the investigation. The status report further reveals that the driver of the truck No.HP 24A-5370 owned by one Shri Satpal, in whose vehicle timber was taken to Yamuna Nagar, is absconding till day. In these circumstances, a prayer has been made for disallowing the instant, bail application of the bail petitioner [Balwant Singh], as ref
Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee
P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement
Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598
Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi
The court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, considering the broad parameters mandated by law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and the power under Section 438 of CrPC is to be exercised sparingly. The court emphasized the import....
The main legal point established is that bail should be granted when no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist, and the nature of the crime is a crucial factor in considering bail applications.
Bail granted in non-grave forest offences after charge-sheet and 5 months custody, despite prima facie evidence and antecedents, as pre-trial detention not punitive and no further purpose served.
The main legal point established is that bail should be granted when no prima facie case or reasonable grounds exist pointing towards the accusation, and the nature of the crime is a crucial factor i....
Pre-arrest bail denied due to prima facie links via CCTV, vehicle, call records; criminal antecedents with multiple prior similar FIRs; need for custodial interrogation; non-disclosure of history; by....
Anticipatory bail is an exceptional relief to be granted sparingly, considering the nature of the accusations and the balance between individual liberty and societal interests.
Bail denied in heinous POCSO offence involving minor rape due to prima facie case, accused's absconding history risking flight, and no undue trial delay despite charge-sheet and witness examination.
The severity of the accusation, the gravity of the offence, and the accused's criminal history are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.