JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions arise out of a common FIR, hence are liable to be disposed, of, by a common order.

(2.) The instant petitions, stand instituted by the bail petitioners, under, Sec. 438, of, the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they seek the grant of anticipatory bail qua them, given theirs apprehending their arrest, for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable, under Sections 147,149,354 B, 504, 506,509,323 of Indian Penal Code, in case FIR No. 142/18 of 14.6.2018, registered at Police Station, Baddi.

(3.) Status report filed. The prima donna factum, as,is, brought to the notice of this Court, is, comprised in the factum of the accused, being not named by the prosecutrix in the FIR, rather hers making a disclosure, in the apt FIR, qua, upon hers being confronted with the accused/bail applicants, in a valid test identification parade, conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned, hers thereupon establishing their identities, besides, also hers establishing their participation, in, the alleged offences. However, the Investigating Officer has reported to this Court, that, despite his eliciting the presence of the prosecutrix, in a test identification parade, yet, the prosecutrix not recording her presence. Consequently, at this stage the participation of the accused in the alleged offences is prima facie not clinchingly established. Apart therefrom, primafacie the prosecutrix, was (I) enjoined, to, unravel in the apposite FIR, the key characteristic features, of, each of the accused, and, also all apt features, as unraveled to the Investigating Officer concerned, were, on hers being confronted with the accused, in, a test identification parade, enjoined to bear compatibility, with, their key physical appearances, as earlier disclosed, (ii) whereupon alone it may be convincingly inferred qua the prosecutrix establishing, the identities of the accused, also, hers' concomitantly establishing their participation in the alleged offences. However, the investigating Officer, has reported, to this Court, that the prosecutrix has not divulged in the apt FIR,the key characteristic features of each of the accused, (iii) thereupon she may be rather defacilitated, to, on hers being confronted, with, the physical appearances of the accused, in, a test identification parade, conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned, hence establish qua their physical appearances, bearing concurrence with, their key characteristic features,as, purportedly earlier disclosed, nor, hence she would be able to establish either the identities of the accused or their unflinching participation in the alleged offences. Thereupon, primafacie hence it appears that the prosecution, at this stage, is, unable to firmly establish either the identity(s) of the accused or their participation in the alleged offences. Moreover, when at this stage, no material, has been placed on record, by the prosecution, demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail applicants, there being every likelihood of theirs fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon this Court is constrained to grant indulgence of bail in favour of the bail applicants. Accordingly the order(s) rendered on 18.6.2018, are confirmed, on, the following conditions: