Each and every case has to be considered on the basis of its own facts and circumstances after considering the material placed before the Court although the ratio of law laid as well as principles which was referred there was no dispute qua. This remarkable judgement was passed by Honorable Shimla High Court in the case of Akhil Katoch v. State of Himachal Pradesh [ Cr.MP(M) No.405 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur.
The petitioner had filed an anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 0042, dated 27.02.2021, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 364, 382, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Palampur. Wherein accused along with three co-accused persons consumed liquor and went reception of Hotel Moon Light for staying but manager the room rent would be Rs.1500/- per day, then accused started abusing him by saying that they would pay Rs.200/-. On refusing they caught him from neck and started beating him and dragged him outside the hotel and continued to beat him for about four hours and at about 4 A.M., somehow complainant managed to flee from the clutches and informed the police.
It was also stated in the status report that Sat Pal alias Vicky s/o Man Singh had also lodged a report in the police station that some drunken boys are abusing his Hotel Manager whereupon police officials in Government vehicle, had rushed to Moon Light Hotel, but at that time Hotel Manager was not found in Hotel and was not traceable in streets, roads, new bus terminal etc. around the hotel.
The petitioner had referred the cases Manoranjana Singh alias Gupta vs. Central Bureau or Investigation and judgment of a Coordinate Bench and Krishan Dev. Vs State for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The court after going through material facts opinioned that, “So far as ratio of law laid as well as principles referred in the aforesaid judgments are concerned, there is no dispute qua that, but each and every case has to be considered on the basis of its own facts and circumstances after considering the material placed before the Court.”
The court dismissed the petition stated that, “The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed and keeping in view the fact that the investigation is at initial stage, I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favor of the petitioner, at this stage. Though, petitioner may be entitled for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but not at least under Section 438 Cr.P.C.”
