Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia J. granted bail to the bail accused of facts and averments presented before him.

The facts of the case are that the prosecutrix made a written complaint wherein she alleged that one day while she was in the jungle grazing the cattle, one Dharmendra Kumar, i. e. accused committed rape and threatened her with life. After she made the complaint the accused was arrested under Section 376, 504, 506 and 354-D(2), Penal Code, 1860 and is behind bars since then. Hence the instant bail petition was filed.

Counsel for the petitioners, Ravi Tanta and Azad Kaith submitted that the accused is 26 years old and is a permanent resident of a nearby village hence he is not in a position to tamper with the evidence or flee from justice hence to keep him in custody for an unlimited period will not be justified.

Counsel for the respondents, S.C. Sharma, P.K. Bhatti and Kamal Kishore submitted that the accused is charged under a serious offence and hence is not liable to be released on bail.

After hearing both sides, the Court found it unfair to keep the accused behind the bars when he will be available for investigation and being a permanent residence of the place is not in a position to tamper with the evidence or flee from justice.

In view of the above, the bail is granted and petition disposed of.[Dharmendra Kumar v. State of H.P, 2020 SCC OnLine HP 1227, decided on 19-08-2020]


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J., addressed a bail application for release of the petitioner arrested under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the penal Code, 1860.

The present application for bail states that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It has also been stated that he is neither in a position to tamper with the evidence nor in a position to flee from justice.

According to the police report, prosecution story which had led to the filing of FIR under the above-mentioned Sections was that,

“Promila Devi, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Bhadarnu/complainant, got registered a complaint against the petitioner, alleging therein that the Department of NSFDC had imparted training for fruit processing to the women belonging to the Scheduled Caste. As per the said training programme, a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards Kaushal Vikaas Bhatta, per women, was to be paid to them; however, only Rs. 2,000 per women by way of Cheque was paid to them. As per the allegations,  Him. Con. Ltd. was found to have shown another training programme having been organized at Karsog, however, which as a matter of fact, was not at all organized. Consequently, FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC came to be registered against the petitioner.”

Additional Advocate Generals, Shiv Pal Manhans and P.K. Bhatti, contended that the petitioner was found involved in non-cognizable offences and in the case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.

High Court on noting the facts and circumstances of the case stated that, petitioner being the resident of the place and joining the investigation is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution nor to flee from justice.

Thus, the Court held that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Bail granted subject to conditions. [Bhumi Nand v. State of H.P., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 2167, decided on 16-12-2019]

Case Briefs

Karnataka High Court: Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. while allowing the petitioner-accused’s petition for grant of bail, laid down certain conditions such as a sum of one lakh rupees to be paid and he shall appear before the court on all the dates of hearing and shall not tamper with the evidence.

The brother of the deceased victim filed a complaint that the petitioner-accused had kidnapped his sister on the pretext of marrying her. Later, her mother complained that he took undue advantage of the innocence of the victim girl, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident and was sexually assaulted due to which she was compelled to commit suicide. Later it came to notice of the court and was recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that the deceased had gone with the accused-petitioner on her own and had been living with him since then. Apart from this, there were no specific allegations of kidnapping or sexual assault. A case was filed against the petitioner-accused under Section 439 CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 along with with Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Sessions Court; and the bail petition filed by him was rejected by that court. 

The counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that on the date of the complaint the girl was above 17 years and she had full mental ability to understand the consequences.

The counsel for accused-petitioner referred two cases Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40. In Dataram Singh’s case the Court pondered upon the fundamental assumption of criminal jurisprudence i.e., a person is believed to be innocent until proven guilty and that the grant of bail is a general rule. In Sanjay Chandra’s case, the Court said that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person and should respect the principle that punishment begins after conviction as imprisonment before conviction has substantial punitive content.

In view of the above, the court was of the view that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, and the bail was granted to the accused-petitioner subject to various terms and conditions. [Santosh v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 101779 of 2019, decided on 04-11-2019]