Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 65 (HP)

Ram Nath v. State of H. P.

2014-01-09

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral) SI Babu Ram, Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. Status report perused and placed on the file of CRMPM No. 11906 of 2013, titled as Sarswati Devi versus State of H.P. 2. In this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner Ram Nath is seeking regular bail, in connection with FIR No.154 of 2013, dated 14.11.2013, registered at Police Station, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused stands arrested on 16.11.2013. 3. According to the accused, he is innocent; has been falsely implicated; investigation is complete, hence, should be enlarged on bail. Petitioner, aged 63 years, is the father-in-law of deceased Ati Kumari. He got his son co-accused Sandeep Sharma married to the deceased on 16.12.2010. Thereafter, on account of certain differences between his son and the deceased, the family separated. Sandeep Sharma separated his residence and kitchen. For over a period of one year, petitioner has been staying independently with his wife Sarswati Devi and Sandeep Sharma with his wife (deceased). Petitioner stands falsely implicated in the instant case. 4. Bail petition is opposed on several grounds. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. 6. There is sufficient material on record to prima facie reflect complicity of the accused-petitioner in the alleged crime. Simply because accused have been maintaining separate residences, cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It is not that father was having strained relations with his son. Not only there are allegations of cruelties meted out by the petitioner, his wife and their son, but also petitioner did not bother to even enquire about the welfare of the deceased, when she was admitted in the hospital. There is prima facie material on record to this effect. Statements of independent witnesses are on record. According to the prosecution, after consuming poison, deceased telephoned her mother. Her relatives came and took her to the hospital for administering medical treatment. Unfortunately, deceased could not survive. No doubt, investigation is complete, but then this cannot be a reason to grant bail. 7. Principle for grant of bail is now well settled. According to the prosecution, after consuming poison, deceased telephoned her mother. Her relatives came and took her to the hospital for administering medical treatment. Unfortunately, deceased could not survive. No doubt, investigation is complete, but then this cannot be a reason to grant bail. 7. Principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 8. The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , laid down the following parameters for grant of pre-arrest bail:- “111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. 113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the court of Sessions or the High Court is always available.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 10. Apprehension is that the accused, if enlarged on bail, would influence or intimidate or threaten witnesses and tamper with the record. It is one of those cases where bail cannot be granted. Simply because investigation is complete, cannot be a ground for grant of bail. Prima facie it cannot be said that the accused stands falsely implicated or is totally innocent. 11. It is one of those cases where bail cannot be granted. Simply because investigation is complete, cannot be a ground for grant of bail. Prima facie it cannot be said that the accused stands falsely implicated or is totally innocent. 11. When the aforesaid settled position of law is applied to the factual matrix of the instant case, I am of the considered view that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant bail. 12. Taking all the aforesaid facts into consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petition is dismissed. 13. 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. Petition stands disposed of.