AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail for offences as detailed in First Information Report No. 93/2010 dated 31.3.2010 under Sections 363, 366, 342, 506/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed before me that other accused namely, Ramesh Chand, Sumna Devi and Chhotu Ram were already released on bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala on 20.4.2010.
The Petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of bail, which application has been rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that, balance has to be maintained between the liberty of an individual and interest of the society. He also observed that under the garb of anticipatory bail the accused can avoid being questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and connection of the other persons. The further reason assigned by learned court for rejecting the application is that:
The complainant would have been got married to accused Surinder had she not fled away. Bail Petitioner despite being asked to join the investigation during the period of interim bail has not given the detail of the facts of the case to the police. The case is still under investigation and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, custodial interrogation of the bail Petitioner is required. Therefore, the bail Petitioner does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail and accordingly this application is dismissed.
There are generalizations and not concrete facts. It is not disputed before me that now the investigation is complete. In these circumstances, I deem it fit and proper to allow this application and direct that:
(a) The Petitioner will not be arrested in connection with the offences under Sections 363, 366, 342, 506/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in First Information Report No. 92/2010.
(b) He shall join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer.
(c) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor make any attempt to influence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner or hinder the progress of the trial in any manner whatsoever.
(d) He shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.
(e) He shall furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.
(f) In case of breach of any condition the Petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith without reference to this Court.
This order shall remain in force till challan is put up in court, where after the Petitioner shall move the trial court for further directions. Bail bond shall be furnished on 2nd June, 2010. Application disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms.