Kapoor Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.133/2020, dated 08.08.2020, registered under Sections 447, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, and as such has preferred the instant petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for grant of regular bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the status report.

As per the status report, the case against the petitioner is that on 08.08.2020, one Nitin Kumar lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the averments that:-

3(i). The complainant is a shopkeeper at Chail Chowk. He is the owner of a parcel of land adjoining to the land owned by a relative of the petitioner. The petitioner and his relative started raising construction of a house over the said land and in that process, they were trying to cover the land in excess of their owned land. The complainant thereafter requested the petitioner as well as his relative for getting their land demarcated before carrying out any construction work.

3(ii). On 06.08.2020 at around 1:30 pm, petitioner alongwith some other persons (not known to the complainant) came to the complainant's shop. Again talks were held between the two in respect of disputed land. The petitioner statedly did not agree either for demarcation of the land or for temporarily stopping the construction work. The complainant is stated to have warned the petitioner of approaching the Court in this regard, whereafter the petitioner statedly abused him and took out something resembling a revolver and indicating it threatened the complainant of using all its six bullets against him.

On the basis of above complaint, the FIR in question was registered.

3(iii). During investigations, the petitioner is said to have informed that he does not possess any pistol/revolver and that he had threatened the complainant only by using the cover of his mobile phone. Whereafter the petitioner was bonded with notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has further come in the status report that on 11.08.2020, the petitioner again threatened the complainant, which fact was separately complained about by the latter. Resultantly, the notice under Section 41A CrPC was cancelled and the petitioner was arrested on 12.08.2020.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the plea of false implication and pleaded innocence. He further submitted that on 11.08.2020, the petitioner had actually gone to the house of the complainant for effecting the compromise and had not threatened or intimated him.

Learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the status report submitted that the petitioner has a long history of criminal cases, therefore, he should not be enlarged on bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to following para of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 2 SCC 382:-

"10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the court, etc."

The status report no doubt gives a long history of criminal cases against the petitioner, however, most of these cases are of petty nature and in some of them, petitioner is stated to have been acquitted. In the facts of the present case, the status report does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not in possession of any pistol/revolver and had allegedly threatened the complainant only with his mobile phone cover. The offences alleged against him in the FIR are bailable. In respect of cancellation of notice under Section 41A CrPC on the basis of repeat threat allegedly given by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had gone to the house of the complainant for effecting compromise and had not threatened him. Considering the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, a stringent condition is hereby imposed upon him that in case in future, he is found to be involved in any FIR, then the instant bail is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the bail petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

(i). The petitioner shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii). The petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(iii). The petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv) . The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.

(v). In case the petitioner is put to trial, then he shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

(vii). It is made clear that in case the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in future in any FIR, then this bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. This shall also be considered as a negative factor for consideration of his future bail application, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent - State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter.

Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

Authenticated copy be also supplied to learned counsel for the parties by the Secretary.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.