SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under S.438 CrPC , bail petitioner has sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 44, dated 1.3.2020, under Ss. 379 and 34 IPC and Ss. 32 and 33 of Indian Forest Act, registered with Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 2.3.2020, ASI Inder Singh has come present with the record. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report prepared by the investigating agency on the basis of investigation carried out by it. Record perused and returned. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, fairly stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation and there is nothing required to be recovered from the bail petitioner. However, learned Additional Advocate General, while expressing his apprehension that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence, stated that, in case, this Court intends to enlarge the petitioner on bail, he may be imposed strict conditions.