Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 876 (HP)

Mehar Chand v. State of H. P.

2014-07-10

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2014
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. (Oral) Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.21/14 registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Ramshehar, District Solan. He has been arrested in this case on 20th June, 2014 and is still in judicial custody. 2. Deceased Mast Ram and Bhagat Ram were real brothers. Accused is the son of Bhagat Ram. Deceased Mast Ram is the uncle of the accused. The accused is serving as Havaldar in Assam Riffles. In the month of May, 2014, he being on leave was in his native village Luna (Kaatlu) sub Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan. 3. Complainant Smt. Kunta Devi is the wife of the deceased. Kumari Mamta aged 11 years is born to them out of this wedlock. Complaint is that Bhagat Ram and his wife (parents of the accused-petitioner) used to reprimand Mamta without any ryme or reason. On 4.5.2014 also, both Bhagat Ram and his wife reprimanded Mamta. On this deceased Mast Ram inquired from both of them as to why they use to reprimand his daughter without any rhyme or reason. They both made a complaint to the accused-petitioner that the deceased used to abuse and quarrel with them. This allegedly has enraged the accused-petitioner. The time was around 12.00 noon and the deceased was present in the 1st floor of his house along with the complainant. Accused-petitioner climbed up the 1st floor of the house and caught hold the deceased from his throat. He pushed the deceased who fell and rolled down through stairs and fell unconscious. The accused-petitioner informed the Ward Panch, Asha Ram. He came to the spot and found deceased lying in an unconscious condition. Dr. Ram Krishan was summoned from the village who examined the deceased and on finding the critical condition, advised the complainant to shift him to some good hospital. The deceased was taken to Akash Hospital at Nalagarh. The condition of the deceased remained as it is and there being no improvement, the doctor on duty informed that the deceased was no more. On this, dead body was brought to the house. The complainant did not have telephone, therefore, could not inform her brothers or near relations nor the police being under shock also on account of sudden death of her husband. On this, dead body was brought to the house. The complainant did not have telephone, therefore, could not inform her brothers or near relations nor the police being under shock also on account of sudden death of her husband. On the other hand, the accused-petitioner after having taken the villagers and near relations in confidence, managed to cremate the dead body. He even performed the last rites at Haridwar. The matter was reported to the police on 9.5.2014, when FIR was registered against the accused-petitioner. 4. The investigation in this case is complete. Without lamenting much on the merits of the case, as in that event, prejudice is likely to be caused to the case of either party, suffice would it to say that in the given circumstances, when the incident occurred during the broad day light i.e. at 12.00 noon in the presence of the complainant coupled with the factum of the Ward Panch Asha Ram was summoned by none else but the accused-petitioner himself there and then as well as the deceased was shifted to a private hospital at Nalagarh, had the occurrence been taken place in the manner as has now been claimed, it is not understandable as to why the matter was not reported to the police, if not by the complainant (being under shock) by the Ward Panch or the doctor who attended upon the deceased in the hospital. It is also difficult to believe that complainant could not inform her brothers or other near relations till 9.5.2014 and that the dead body was cremated in their absence. These are certain factors, which create a doubt qua the manner in which as per the investigation conducted at this stage, the occurrence has taken place. 5. Any how, the investigation is now complete. The investigating agency may file a challan against the accused-petitioner. He is a local resident of Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan and working as Havaldar in Assam Riffles. He, therefore, can reasonably be believed to have roots in the society. This Court, therefore, see no reason of his fleeing away from justice or his non-availability at the time of trial. Therefore, balancing his freedom and liberty vis-à-vis given facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, his further custody, merely that the offence he allegedly committed is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code would be unwarranted. This Court, therefore, see no reason of his fleeing away from justice or his non-availability at the time of trial. Therefore, balancing his freedom and liberty vis-à-vis given facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, his further custody, merely that the offence he allegedly committed is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code would be unwarranted. Therefore, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 21 of 2014, Police Station, Ramshehar, District Solan, shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh. The accused-petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions: that he shall:- (a) regularly attend the trial Court on each and every hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not temper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. (c) not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer. (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 5. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 6. 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.