Pawan Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Piar Singh Rana, J.—Present petition filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 133 of 2007 dated 14.9.2007 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 170 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP.

It is pleaded that applicant is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by prosecution. It is pleaded that applicant is not keeping good health and suffering from Asthma and spinal cord problem. It is further pleaded that applicant is also heart and diabetes patient. It is further pleaded that applicant will not tamper with prosecution witness in any manner and any direction imposed by Court will be binding upon applicant. Prayer for acceptance of bail application sought.

Per contra reply filed on behalf of non-applicant pleaded therein that there is no medical record in order to prove that applicant is suffering from Asthma and diabetes. It is further pleaded that applicant is habitual offender. It is further pleaded that sixteen FIRs of cheating and forgery have been registered against the applicant in various police stations. It is further pleaded that applicant is facing trial in 16 cases of cheating and forgery in different Courts across the State. It is further pleaded that in some cases charge-sheet against the applicant were filed in the year 2007 but applicant remained absconded from Court till January 2014. It is further pleaded that keeping in view the act and conduct of the applicant and gravity of offences committed by him bail application has been rightly rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP. Prayer for dismissal of application sought.

Following points arise for determination in the present application:

(1) Whether bail application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application.

(2) Final Order.

Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused record carefully.

Finding upon Point No. 1.

Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case cannot be decided at this stage. The same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.

Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is not keeping good health and he is suffering from Asthma and spinal cord problem and he is heart and diabetes patient and on this ground bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), . Also see The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh, . In the present case it is prima facie proved on record that sixteen FIRs have been registered against applicant as of today which are quoted as under:

It is also prima facie proved on record that in some cases charge-sheets were filed against the applicant in the year 2007 but applicant remained absconded from Court till January 2014. In view of the fact that sixteen cases are pending against the applicant cited supra and in view of the fact that applicant did not place on record any indoor slip of his medical treatment and in view of the fact that applicant has simply placed on record outdoor slip of his medical treatment and in view of the fact that proper medical treatment will be given to applicant in jail and in view of the ruling given by Hon''ble High Court of HP in case reported in 2010 (1) Him. L.R. 482 titled Pawan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release applicant on bail at this stage. It is held that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then interests of the public and the State will be adversely effected. It is also held that if applicant is released on bail then trial of the pending cases will also be adversely effected because applicant remained absconded from criminal courts proceedings w.e.f. 2007 till January 2014 and he halted the criminal proceedings without any reasonable cause. Court is of the opinion that if the applicant is released on bail at this stage then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witness. Hence point No. 1 is answered in negative.

Finding upon Point No. 2.

In view of my finding upon point No. 1 present bail application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is rejected. Observations made in bail order will not effect merits of criminal case in any manner. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.