SACHIN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 290 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Kullu.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and I have also gone through the status report filed today by SI Sham Lal, P.S. Kullu. The gist of the status report is:-

(3.) It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 05.11.2019, the petitioner has joined the investigation and is co-operating with the Investigating Agency. According to the status report, the petitioner is not disclosing the true facts regarding theft. This cannot be the ground for rejection of the bail petition. It is for the Investigating Agency to carry out investigation in accordance with law. The status report does not disclose any direct evidence against the petitioner as of now and he has only been suspected of the offence. The focus in the status report is regarding the disappearance of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.10.2019 till 22.10.2019, when interim bail was granted to him by learned Sessions Judge Kullu. Another plea taken in the status report for rejection of the bail petition is that the petitioner had disclosed the date of death of his brother-in-law as 15.10.2019, whereas, during investigation, it was found that no one died in village Badah on 15.10.2019. It is however seen that the previous paragraphs of the status report, refer to a statement of the petitioner wherein he had disclosed that his brother-in-law had died on 11.10.2019 and he had gone to attend the last rites on 12.10.2019. Be that as it may, all this will be subject matter of trial. For an offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, which is yet to be proved against the petitioner, his liberty cannot be curtailed at this juncture only on the basis of suspicion.