MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application has been filed by the bail applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for his being released from judicial custody wherein he is instantly lodged for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 395, 367, 147, 148, 149, 120-B IPC recorded in F.I.R. No. 28/2015 registered at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Status report has been filed by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of the status report discloses that the investigation into the offences allegedly committed by the bail applicant stands closed and the recovery of the purported looted amount of Rs. 10,000/- stands effected by the investigating officer at the instance of co-accused Devender Singh @ Simple. Besides the recovery of the Danda allegedly used by co-accused Ajay Kumar for inflicting blows with it on the person of the victim too stands recovered at the latters instance, by the Investigating Officer. The only role attributed to the applicant is of his having inflicted simple injuries. No other role, is attributed to the bail applicant, except his having joined the company of the other co-accused, in theirs respectively inflicting blows with Danda upon the victim, besides looting a sum of Rs. 10000/- from the victim. Given the minimality of role ascribed to the bail applicant as also given the minimality of injuries on the person of the victim, besides given the fact that the investigation stands completed, obviously in face thereof any prolongation of the judicial incarceration of the bail applicant would only curtail and throttle his personal liberty.

(2.) Even though the factum of repeated and successive indulgence of the bail applicant in criminal activities besides the factum of criminal cases pending against him is a necessary factor to be borne in mind when according or refusing the facility of bail to him. However, in view of the mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2012 2 SCC 382, wherein it has been enshrined that strict/stringent conditions can be imposed by this Court to obviate the factum of the bail applicant fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. The imposition of such conditions would also mitigate as well as allay the apprehension of the State that given his previous repeated indulgence in criminal activities he in case is granted bail would abuse his bail and re-indulge in criminal activities. Consequently, this Court to allay the apprehension of the respondent that there is likelihood of his influencing the witnesses as well as his again indulging in criminal activities, proceeds to afford the facility of the bail to the bail applicant subject to the imposition upon him of the following conditions. If any condition hereof is infringed, it shall facilitate the respondent to move this Court for cancellation of bail of the bail applicant. The conditions are:--