Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 83 (HP)

ASHA RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2000-04-17

M.R.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—All these petitions (Cr. M.P. (M) Nos. 261 to 263 and 265 to 267 of 2000) udner Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the accused) arise out of the same First Information Report and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. 2. Case FIR No. 13/2000 dated February 24, 2000 under Sections 302/147/148/149/201 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the accused persons and six others at Police Station Kandaghat. The other six co-accused being women, one of them being pregnant and others having to look-after the small children, cattle etc., have been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge on the said considerations. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on February 23, 2000 at about 6.30/7.00 p.m. one Ashwani Sood, resident of Shivshankar Garh, while returning after attending the case in the Court at Kandaghat, came running and crying towards his house and was followed by the accused and their co-accused. All the accused, except Lekh Ram, were armed with Dandas and Lekh Ram was armed with Baltari. They caught hold of Ashwani Sood and dragged him towards the road. The accused persons and their co-accused gave heatings to Ashwani Sood on the road and he was thereafter dragged towards the house of Satya Devi where he was again beaten up by the accused persons and their accomplices which resulted in his death on the spot. 4. The accused persons claim bail on the grounds that in view of the grant of bail to the women accused in the case, the refusal of bail to the male accused persons by the Sessions Judge is wrong, that the very hypothesis of prosecution that as many as 12 persons assaulted the deceased is preposterous and doubtful, that the nature of injuries on the person of the deceased are indicative of the fact that there was no common intention/ common object of the accused in committing the murder and that the accused persons, if detained in custody as a measure of punishment at this stage, cannot be compensated at a later stage for such custody. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the record. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that there is long chain of litigation between some of the accused persons and the deceased. Apart from the complaints to the Courts and the police that said Ashwani Sood apprehended danger and was often beaten up by some of the accused persons, there are representations to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh and the President, State Human Rights Commission. Against the given background, it does not, prima-facie, seem improbable or preposterous as claimed for the accused/petitioners that the deceased was chased, apprehended and beaten up by the accused persons twelve in number. As is the case of the prosecution, and is prima-facie disclosed by the material on record, the deceased was chased by the accused persons and was apprehended while he was running towards his house and was then taken to the road, where he was beaten up and then was dragged to another place, i.e. the compound of one Satya Devi where he was again allegedly beaten and there he succumbed to the injuries. 7. A perusal of the post mortem report reveals as many as twelve injuries on the person of the deceased. The repeated beatings coupled with the injuries sustained negatives the contention that no common intention or the common object is attributable to the accused in causing the death of Ashwani Sood. 8. Though in the ordinary course once a co-accused similarly situated has been released on bail, the bail should not be refused to the other accused. However there is exception made by Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of grant of bail in favour of a woman, a sick or infirm person or a person below sixteen years of age. The accused persons who have already been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, are all women and have been given the benefit of, the provisions of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is not available to the male accused. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that accused Bipat Ram is an old man of 70 years and accused Madan Lai aged 62 years is an infim person. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that accused Bipat Ram is an old man of 70 years and accused Madan Lai aged 62 years is an infim person. There is nothing on the record which may even prima facie show that accused Madan Lal is an infirm person. So far as accused Bipat Ram is concerned, he does not seem to be so old as is attempted to be made out for the reason that in the investigation record including his medicolegal report and certificate of identity his age has been given as 66 years. Thus none of these two accused persons is entitled to any benefit of the exception under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. No doubt the law does not provide for compensating the detention of a person in custody during trial if he is ultimately acquitted. However, while considering grant of bail the Court need not be swayed only by this consideration. It has to take into account the nature of the offence, severity of punishment provided therefor and the requirements of a fair trial. 10. In this case the accused are charged with the commission of an offence which is very grave in nature and for which the severest punishment has been provided for. The background and the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, are also such which must weigh in favour of refusal of the bail. 11. Contents of the report No. 12 dated February 23, 2000 as placed on the record, create the impression that in the event of their release on bail the accused persons are in a position to create pressure which may be prejudicial to fair investigation of the case and it is implicit in their past conduct that they are capable of terrorising the prosecution witnesses and these factors also must weigh against the grant of bail. 12. In view of the above, I am of the view that the accused /petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. As a result all these petitions are dismissed. 13. The observations made here-in-above are strictly for the purpose of disposal of these bail petitions and nothing contained therein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Petition dismissed.