Reshma Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner is a lady, aged around 50 years. She is co-accused in FIR No. 186 of 2020, dated 16.12.2020, registered at Police Station, Jawali, District

Kangra, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 452, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. She has been detained w.e.f. 17.12.2020 and,

therefore, by means of instant petition preferred under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prays for grant of regular bail.

The FIR in question was registered on the basis of a statement recorded by the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant Rajat

Kumar stated that on 16.12.2020, he alongwith his brother Surjit Singh and sister-in-law Neha were relaxing in their courtyard when at around 11:30

A.M. their neighbourers i.e. Puran Chand, Reshma (wife of Puran Chand/petitioner, Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar’s wife and mother, petitioner's

daughter and daughter-in-law came to the spot, hurled abuses and started a fight because of an old land dispute existing between the parties. In the

process, Raj Kumar using the sickle carried by him inflicted injuries on the complainant, whereas Reshma (Petitioner) caused injuries to Surjit Singh by

using the sickle held by her. The other accused persons also gave fist and leg blows to the Complainant, his brother Surjit Kumar and Neha (Bhabhi of

the complainant). The accused persons thereafter left the spot after threatening the complainant, his brother and bhabhi that they will not be spared

and passage will be taken from them per force.

On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the FIR was registered. During investigations, accused Raj Kumar recorded his statement under Section 27

of the Indian Evidence Act on the basis of which, a sickle allegedly used by him was recovered. Another co-accused Puran Chand also gave his

statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the basis of which second sickle statedly used by him in the incident was also recovered by

the investigating agency. Co-accused Neelam Kumari, Bhano Rani and Puran Chand have been enlarged on bail by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I, Kangra at Dharmashala vide separate orders passed on 18.1.2021. However, the bail petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on

the ground that according to the status report, bail applicant had entered into the courtyard of the house of the injured persons with the weapon of

offence i.e. ‘Darat’, as a consequences of which, the complainant alongwith other persons had sustained grievous injuries as observed in the

MLC.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that two factions involved in the alleged incident had previous enmity with each other on account of a

long standing land dispute. On the alleged day of incident i.e. 16.12.2020, a counter FIR No 187 of 2020 was also registered at Police Station, Jawali,

District Kangra at the instance of accused persons against the complainant and his relatives. The offences alleged against the petitioner in the FIR in

question have not been committed by her. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea of innocence and false implication. He has further

submitted that the petitioner will abide by all the terms and conditions in case of enlargement on bail.

Opposing the bail petition, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is accused of serious offences. Alternatively, it was

submitted that in case this Court was inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, then the same be made subject to stringent conditions.

I have perused the status report as well as the record produced today by the Investigating agency. It appears from the record that initially the

statement was made by the complainant that sickle in question was carried and used by the petitioner, however, during investigation it transpired that

sickle was actually carried and used by co-accused Puran Chand. Said Puran Chand has also given his statement in this regard under Section 27 of

the Indian Evidence Act on the basis of which, the sickle was recovered. Said Shri Puran Chand has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated

18.1.2021. The status report does not reflect any criminal history of the petitioner, who is a lady, aged around 50 years. The petitioner is stated to be a

house wife and agriculturist belonging to the area. The investigation in the matter is stated to be complete. In view of above, no significant purpose will

be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further. Role of the petitioner, if any, during the alleged incident is yet to be proved by leading

cogent evidence during the trial. Petitioner has completed around three months in custody. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner deserves to be

enlarged on bail. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-

with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the

following conditions:

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. She shall fully

cooperate the Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the concerned police station as and when called in accordance with law;

(ii) Petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever:

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

(iii) Petitioner shall not contact the complainant or his family members in any manner whatsoever. Petitioner shall not contact, threaten or intimidate

the victim in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) 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 of launching of prosecution, petitioner 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 her Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail,

PAN Card, Bank Account Number, 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 above observations.

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