SARISHTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the bail petitioner under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for enlarging her on bail for hers allegedly having committed offences punishable under Ss. 354, 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 3(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in case FIR No. 42/15 of 26.6.2015, registered at Police Station, Chintpurni, District Una, H.P. Dy. S.P. Jatinder kumar, SDPO Amb is present in the Court and has apprised this Court that the bail petitioner has rendered full and efficacious cooperation in the investigation carried out by him into the offences allegedly committed by the bail petitioner. He further apprised this Court that the investigation into the offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, has come to an end.

(2.) On the previous date, the bail petitioner surrendered herself to the jurisdiction of this Court and today too she has surrendered to the jurisdiction of this Court, which comprises and constitutes 'deemed custody' within the meaning and ambit of Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. so as to render the instant petition maintainable under the aforesaid provisions of law, there being a statutory bar under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the preferment of a petition under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. Consequently, given the cooperation rendered by the bail petitioner and also given the fact that the investigation has come to an end and further given the absence of material demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail petitioner, there is every likelihood of the bail petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as a sequel then this Court does not deem it fit and proper to order for the custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner. Accordingly the indulgence of bail is granted to her and the order rendered on 29th June, 2015 is confirmed, subject to hers complying with the following conditions: - -

(3.) That she shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;