Cr.M.P. (M) No. 492 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. The petitioner approaches this Court for release on pre-arrest bail for offences probably have been committed by him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner is present in person in the Court. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the offences under this Act are not bailable and no bail can be granted to the petitioner. In Karam Dass and 91 others Vs. State of H.P. 1995 (1) Sim.L.C. 363, this court held:- “5. Considering the first contention with respect to the maintainability of the petition, suffice it to state that all the petitioners had surrendered themselves before this Court and they have applied for their release on bail on the ground that none of them have been named in the complaint as also that no prima facie case is made out against any one of them. 6. It is well established that no person accused of an offence can move the Court for bail under section 439, Cr.P.C. unless he is in custody. As already stated, the accused persons appeared and /2/ surrendered themselves before this Court as is apparent from the previous order dated 27-7-1994. In the circumstances, the petitioners can be stated to be in judicial custody when each one of them surrendered before the Court and submitted to its directions. I am fortified in taking this view by the case of Niranjan Singh and another Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others. AIR 1980 SC 785. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is maintainable. 7. Now as regards the underlying object of the bail under section 439 of the Code, suffice it to state that it has to pass approved tests laid down by the apex Court, namely: 1. In case the accused person is granted bail, whether he would face the trial? 2. In case of the grant of bail, whether he is likely to abuse or misuse the privilege so granted to him? In case the answer to the two questions is in the positive, the accused person is entitled to be granted bail. It may be stated that there cannot be in flexible rules governing the subject which rests principally with the Court’s discretion in the matter of allowance or refusal of bail. Probability or improbability of the prosecution terminating in conviction is not a conclusive consideration for the grant or refusal of bail, particularly in a case in which evidence has not so far been led. For their guidance the Courts also took to other circumstances, which may be determinative, as for example the Courts consider: (a) the enormity of the charge, (b) the nature of the accusation, (c) the severity of the punishment which the conviction will entail, /3/ (d) the nature of the evidence in support of the accusation, (e) the danger of the applicant’s absconding if he is released on bail, (f) the danger of witnesses being tampered with, (g) the protracted nature of the trial, (h) opportunity to the applicant for preparation of his defence and access to his counsel, and (i) the health, age and sex of the accused. the aforesaid list of circumstances is not exhaustive but there are other factors also which in peculiar circumstances of the case are to be considered by the Court.” In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is taken into custody and released on bail subject to the following conditions: (1) He shall report to the Police Station, Dharamshala on 29.5.2010 at 4.30 P.M. in the evening. (2) He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence or make any attempt to influence or overawe the witnesses. (3) He shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. (4) He shall present himself before the Investigating Officer on every occasion and at the time so asked by him. (5) He shall furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. (6) The petitioner shall apply afresh for bail when challan is filed in the Trial Court. /4/ List on 2nd June, 2010. Let record of the case be produced on that date. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Cr. Revision No. 116 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Notce. Let record of the Court below be called for. Dasti service permitted. List on 3rd June, 2010. Cr.P.M. No. 406 of 2010 Notice. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Cr.M.P. (M) No. 471 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner is co-operating in the investigation. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that custody of the petitioner is required because his signatures have to be certified from the State Forensic Laboratory. This submission can not be accepted, as this can be done without his detention in police custody. In these circumstances, the application is allowed. Order dated 20th May, 2010 is confirmed. The petitioner shall apply afresh for bail when challan is put up in the Court. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Cr.M.P. (M) No. 498 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. List the matter on 1st June, 2010. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with First Information Report which has been lodged in Police Station, Solan for the offence committed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner shall remain present himself before the Station House Officer, Solan on 29th May, 2010 at 11.00 A.M. The petitioner will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall also co-operate with the investigation of the case. List along with Cr.M.P. (M), No. 483 of 2010. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Cr.M.P. (M) No. 499 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. List the matter on 1st June, 2010. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with First Information Report which has been lodged in Police Station, Solan for the offence committed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner shall remain present himself before the Station House Officer, Solan on 29th May, 2010 at 11.00 A.M. The petitioner will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall also co-operate with the investigation of the case. List along with Cr.M.P. (M), No. 483 of 2010. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Cr.M.P. (M) No. 500 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. List the matter on 1st June, 2010. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with First Information Report which has been lodged in Police Station, Solan for the offence committed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner shall remain present himself before the Station House Officer, Solan on 29th May, 2010 at 11.00 A.M. Needless to say that the police will follow all the instructions/directives issued by the Supreme Court for interrogation of women. The petitioner will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall also co-operate with the investigation of the case. List along with Cr.M.P. (M), No. 483 of 2010. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Cr.M.P. (M) No. 98 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Notice. Let record of the Court below be called for next date. C.M.P. No. 396 of 2010 Notice. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date. In the mean time, further proceedings before the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Trilok Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Admit. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one of the conditions imposed by the learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu is that the vehicle would be released by the police on production of original Registration Certificate. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle had temporary registration and there was no registration certificate issued as such. In these circumstances, it was not possible to have to comply with the condition of production of original Registration Certificate. This is a fact which should and ought to have been put before the learned Trial Court and not in revision before this Court. This Court only exercise jurisdiction to consider the legality of the order on the facts as pleaded and adjudicated by the learned Trial Court. Obviously if this fact has not been urged before the learned Trial Court, I do not intend to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of. However, it will be open to the petitioner herein to approach learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu and to bring its notice that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle can not be produced for the reasons tenable in law. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. List on Monday, i.e. 31st May, 2010. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. List on Monday, i.e. 31st May, 2010. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Admit. Let notice of enhancement be issued to the petitioner. Cr.M.P. No. 399 of 2010. The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner shall remain suspended subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Poanta Sahib within a period of one month from today. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Arb. Case No. 54 of 2005 28.05.2010 Present: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. This case has been listed before the court as vide letter dated 20th April, 2010 Sh. H.S. Dhillon, Presiding Arbitrator has expressed his inability to conduct the proceedings, because he has been appointed as Project Director in the Phata Byung Hydro Electric Project at Rampur (Uttrakhand), which is far away from Chandigarh. In these circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for time to seek instructions. List after two weeks. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge C.W.P. No. 1325 of 2006 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent No. 6. List when detailed report showing the date of dispatch of notice, mode of service and date on which notices have been served on the respondents. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge C.W.P. No. 1312 of 2007 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent No. 1. List when detailed report qua dispatch of notice, mode of dispatch of notice and date on which they are received by the respondents is made. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge F.A.O. (MVA) 305 of 2008 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. It is reported by the Registry that steps for service of respondent No. 1 have not been taken. Let appropriate steps in accordance with law be taken within a period of one week from today, failing which this appeal stand dismissed for non prosecution, without reference to this Court. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge F.A.O. 240 of 2009 28.05.2010 Present: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. C.M.P. No. 370 of 2010 Allowed in terms of prayer clause. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Cr.M.P. (M) No. 331 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the apellant. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent. Cr.M.P (M). No. 480 of 2010 Notice to the respondents. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2010 28.05.2010 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Cr.M.P (M). No. 480 of 2010 Notice to the respondents. Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date. May 28, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge