Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 564 (HP)

Tek Chand v. State of H. P.

2014-05-12

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 53/14, registered under Sections 307, 392, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against him and his co-accused namely, Narender Singh, Golu and Jai Chand in Police Station, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. 2. The offence he allegedly committed is not only grievous but heinous in nature and having repercussions in the society as a whole, because in a planned manner and in order to extort money, he visited the house of complainant Karma Sonam at village 15 Mile, Post Office Bara Gran, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu around 5.30 p.m. and represented that he was having ‘Ghuchi’ with him and interested to sell the same. He asked the complaint to accompany him to village Halan, where he had kept the ‘Ghuchi’ for sale. The complainant believed the representation so made by the accused-petitioner and accompanied by his wife and brother-in-law Kunzok, boarded the car of the accused-petitioner to village Halan. The accused-petitioner allegedly had hatched the conspiracy with his co-accused Narender Singh, Golu and Jai Chand that he will bring the complainant from his house with cash at the pretext of selling ‘Ghuchi’ to him and that on the way they will extort the money from him. In order to implement their hidden agenda and as the complainant on the representation of the accused-petitioner accompanied him to village Halan, on the way his co-accused also joined him at a place namely Kayan, as agreed upon. Chilly powder was thrown in the eyes of complainant and his wife and also Kunzok, his co-brother there by the accused. His wife and co-brother ran away from the spot, however, the complainant was caught hold by the accused-petitioner and his co-accused. They tried to strangulate him. Cash amounting to `50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand), the complainant carrying with him was taken out from his pocket by the accused-petitioner. The complainant thereafter was thrown in the ‘Nallah’ intentionally to kill him. It is on the following morning, wife of the complainant and his co-brother Kunzok removed him to hospital. 3. One of the accused namely Narender Singh has already been arrested in this case by the police and presently is in judicial custody. The remaining co-accused Golu and Jai Chand, however, have absconded and are not available for the purpose of interrogation. 3. One of the accused namely Narender Singh has already been arrested in this case by the police and presently is in judicial custody. The remaining co-accused Golu and Jai Chand, however, have absconded and are not available for the purpose of interrogation. Money allegedly snatched from the complainant is stated to be not recovered as yet. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the accused-petitioner during the course of his interrogation conducted on the directions of this Court has not disclosed anything about the whereabouts of his co-accused and also the money, they snatched from the complainant. The custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is, therefore, sought. 5. The present is a case where the accused-petitioner seems to have committed alleged offence in a planned manner. The accused-petitioner though has joined the interrogation, however, under the protective cover of the interim order passed in this application. The manner in which the accused-petitioner allegedly committed the offence reveals that his custodial interrogation is required and he is not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. The present, therefore, is not a fit case where the discretion in the matter of grant of bail should be exercised in his favour. The grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioner will amount to increase in such type of incidents, which will not only affect a particular individual but also the society as a whole. 6. Therefore, I find no merits in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Before parting, it is clarified that any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands disposed of.