Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1073 (HP)

RUMMI RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-11-18

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.94 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008 registered at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. Reply has been filed. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 24.4.2009 and since then he is in judicial lock-up. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 18.8.2009. The petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation in the case is complete and challan has been submitted in the court and even charge has been framed. It has been submitted that as per prosecution the role of petitioner is that he and Halku Ram had helped in burying the dead body of deceased Birbal, even this has come in the alleged disclosure statement of accused Devi Chand alias Titu. The trial of the case will take some time, no purpose will be served to detain the petitioner indefinitely in judicial lock-up. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. It has been submitted that co-accused Halku Ram has been released on bail on 8.10.2009 in Cr.MP(M) No. 860 of 2009. It has been submitted on the ground of parity the petitioner is also entitled to bail in view of bail granted to Halku Ram. 3. The bail application has been opposed by Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General. In the reply it has been stated that the petitioner has been charged under Sections 201, 120-B and 302 IPC. The learned Additional Advocate General has drawn my attention to the charge framed against petitioner under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on the status report submitted by the investigating agency in the bail application of Luhar alias Halku Ram and has submitted that as per the status report in that case altercation took place between Devi Chand and Sonu, Devi Chand took stone from the Nalla and hit on the head of Sonu, Sonu fell down and became unconscious. Devi Chand put the head of Sonu in the Nalla while Tek Chand held his legs and ultimately Sonu died. Devi Chand called Rummi Ram on mobile phone and disclosed him entire story. Devi Chand put the head of Sonu in the Nalla while Tek Chand held his legs and ultimately Sonu died. Devi Chand called Rummi Ram on mobile phone and disclosed him entire story. Rummi Ram came to Devi Chand and Tek Chand during night in Devdhar forest, lifted the dead body and concealed the same in the bushes. Rummi Ram thereafter went to his home where Devi Chand and Tek Chand stayed at Thorat forest. In the morning, Tek Chand went to his home in village Kalehad and narrated the incident to Luhar alias Halku Ram and told him that he was called by Devi Chand at Ghatsani. In the evening Halku Ram came to Ghatsani and met Devi Chand. Both of them took liquor and left for village Nagan during night and talked to Rummi Ram on mobile phone, who was called in forest Devdhar. Rummi Ram came in the forest along with one bottle of liquor, some implements and 5 packets of salt and all three of them reached the place where the dead body was lying. All of them took liquor, thereafter they dug a pit and placed the dead body in the pit after removing the clothes and shoes etc. from the dead body. The salt was spread on the dead body. Thereafter, Rummi Ram along with implements left for his home whereas Tek Chand and Halku Ram stayed in Ghatsani forest and went to their respective homes in the morning. 4. I have gone through the order dated 8.10.2009 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 860 of 2009 vide which the bail was granted to Halku Ram alias Luhar. Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently submitted that since the charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail. There is no denial of the fact that charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC but I am not purposely commenting on the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the case of either side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in case arising out of FIR No. 94/2008 dated 19.12.2008 registered at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. Accordingly, the application is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in case arising out of FIR No. 94/2008 dated 19.12.2008 registered at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 5. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.