Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 329 (HP)

RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-22

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. ASI Ram Lal, Investigating Officer, Police Station Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. is present in Court. Status report filed. 2. IN relation with F.I.R. No. 199 of 2012, dated 2.9.2012, registered at Police Station Sadar, Distt. Bilapur, H.P. under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, present petitioner Sh. Ram Kumar stands arrested by the police. Petitioner first filed an application for bail under the provisions of Section 439 Cr. P.C. before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P., which stands rejected in terms of order dated 5.3.2013. Petitioner has now filed the instant application seeking bail. It is a settled position of law that rejection of bail by the trial Court shall not come in the way of the present petitioner in approaching this Court for grant of bail. 3. HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the present case. 4. AS per the case of the prosecution, the present petitioner was driving vehicle No. HP24C-2595. Deceased Mukesh Kumar was driving vehicle No. HP69-1563. On 1.9.2012, at about 11.30 p.m. the vehicles met with an accident. Scuffle took place between the two drivers. However, the matter did not rest there. The present petitioner, after some time, on telephone called up his accomplice Sh. Gopal Singh, who is also a co-accused in the present case. Thereafter, both Gopal Singh and the present petitioner gave severe beatings to Sh. Mukesh Kumar as a result of which Sh. Mukesh Kumar sustained serious and grievous injuries and eventually succumbed to the same. Prima facie it appears there is time gap between the scuffle and beatings being given by both the accused. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that investigation is complete; challan has been presented in the Court and at the most it is a case which would fall within the provisions of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. THE contention needs to be rejected. In the instant case death has taken place on account of beatings allegedly given by the present petitioner and his co-accused. It is not a case where such beatings were given in self defense or on the spur of the moment. 5. THE contention needs to be rejected. In the instant case death has taken place on account of beatings allegedly given by the present petitioner and his co-accused. It is not a case where such beatings were given in self defense or on the spur of the moment. As per the prosecution, present petitioner called his co-accused on telephone and thereafter both of them gave severe beatings to Sh. Mukesh Kumar as a result of which he sustained injuries and died. Hence, in the present case no ground for interference is made out. Bail petition needs to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 6. ANY observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any.