Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Suresh Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 285 of 2024
Decided On : 23-04-2024
Bail petitioner - Pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of CrPC - Sections 341, 354-A, 354-D, 506-(II) of IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act - Section 438 of CrPC, Section 341, 354A, 354D, 506(II), 195A of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The bail petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of CrPC in a case involving allegations under Sections 341, 354-A, 354-D, 506(II) of IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act. The petitioner claimed innocence and retaliation by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie accusations against the bail petitioner, including unwarranted activities and past criminal history. The court noted the seriousness of the offenses and the petitioner's lack of cooperation with the investigation. The court also highlighted the petitioner's violation of bail conditions and involvement in a fresh case during interim bail.
Issues: Prima facie accusations, seriousness of offenses, lack of cooperation with investigation, violation of bail conditions, past criminal history, and potential threat to witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, but the power under Section 438 of CrPC is to be exercised sparingly. The court considered the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regulating grant of bail and the nature of the crime as relevant factors. The court also highlighted the importance of judicial application of mind and the gravity of the offenses in considering bail applications.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail petitioner's request for enlargement on bail, directing the petitioner to surrender before the police and canceling the personal and surety bonds. The court emphasized that the observations made in the judgment are not indicative of findings for the purposes of investigation and subsequent proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner [Suresh Kumar Sharma], has come up before this Court, seeking pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter (referred to as CrPC). originating from the FIR No. 50 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una [H.P.], under Section 341, 354-A, 354-D, 506-(II) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case set up by Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Learned counsel is that the bail petitioner is the owner of a shop, which is rented out on tenancy. In order to ensure the proper up-keep of the aforesaid premises, the bail petitioner started work of installing CCTV cameras on the said premises. The aforesaid installation was objected to by the complainant [X], who threatened the bail petitioner with dire consequences. As a result of this, the bail petitioner submitted an application to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Una on 09.02.2024. It is further averred that the present FIR dated 12.02.2024 is an outcome of revengeful attitude and just to implicate the petitioner falsely.
2(i). The bail petitioner is stated to have moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Una, on 16.02.2024 but, the same was dismissed on 21.02.2024, by not considering the above facts. It is further averred that the petitioner is a responsible person and he has no concern, whatsoever, in the offence, alleged in the FIR. The bail petitioner has also furnished undertakings that he shall join the investigation and shall not tamper with the evidence and will not cause any threat or inducement to the witnesses in any manner.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES
2(ii). Upon issuance of notice by this Court on 22.02.2024, this Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner with the direction to file the Status Report. The State Authorities filed the Status Report dated 07.03.2024 on the instructions of SHO, Police Station Sadar Una and after furnishing the Status Report the matter was posted for 28.03.2024.
2(iii). On 28.03.2024 the State Authorities have furnished the Fresh Status Report dated 27.03.2024, on the instructions of SHO, Police Station (Sadar) Una, which forms part of the case records. The matter was then listed on 20.04.2024 whereby the Third Status Report dated 08.04.2024 was taken on record. The copy of the Status Report(s), as referred to above was furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to enable him to make submissions in the matter.
2(iv). A perusal of the Status Reports dated 07.03.2024, 27.03.2024 and 08.04.2024 are pari-materia, containing similar averments.
2(v) In terms of the Status Reports, the prosecution story is that the complainant [X] alongwith her sister [y] and daughters reside at the place mentioned in the Status Report. It is averred in the Status Report that the bail petitioner resorted to unwarranted obscene acts from the roof of his shop. It is further averred that while the daughters of the complainant go to market the bail petitioner causes obstruction to them, leading to fear in the minds of her daughters also. Even the bail petitioner had given threatenings of killing to the complainant and her sister. It is in this background that on the complaint the F.I.R was registered against the bail petitioner under Sections 341, 354A, 354D, 506 (II) IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
During investigation, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 30.02.2024 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even statements of the complainant [X] and her sister [y] were recorded before the Learned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has further been revealed in the Status Report that the petitioner had threatened the complainant [X] with pistol. It has also come in the Status Report that the petitioner had filed a bail application before the learned Trial Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, which was rejected on 21.02.2024. It has further come in
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.
Successive bail petitions require material change in circumstances; charge sheet filing insufficient. Criminal antecedents and fleeing investigation justify denial despite procedural claims.
The court ruled that bail should be denied due to the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents and involvement in the crime, emphasizing the need for public safety.
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.
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.
The main legal point established is that anticipatory bail is to be granted in exceptional cases where the accusation is frivolous or groundless, and the court must consider the nature of the accusat....
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty and speedy trial.
Bail denied in murder case due to criminal antecedents including proclaimed offender status and conviction, eyewitness assault evidence, blood findings, offence gravity, and absconding risk; arrest g....
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
