Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1809 (HP)

Gulshan Kumar v. State of H. P.

2015-12-07

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Heard. 2. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.259/2012 registered under Sections 395, 307, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police station, Palampur District Kangra, H.P. He has been arrested in this case on 18.12.2012 along with his coaccused and is still in judicial custody. One of his coaccused Amit Kumar has been ordered to be released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The accused-petitioner along with his co-accused Rajat and Deepak, are still in judicial custody. 3. An application Cr.M.P.(M) No.495 of 2015 filed by the accused-petitioner previously came to be listed before this Court on 19th May, 2015, when dismissed with the following observations:- (7) “True it is that the accused-petitioner is in judicial custody for a period over two years. The trial has now commenced and listed for recording remaining prosecution evidence on 04.07.2015. He being an outsider may abscond, if admitted on bail. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances though this application deserves dismissal, however a direction to the trial Court to conclude the proceedings in the trial at the earliest, would serve the ends of justice. (8). The application is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be a direction to the trial Court to conclude the proceedings in the trial at the earliest, preferably by the quarter ending 30th September, 2015.” 4. It is thus seen that the trial Court was directed to conclude the proceedings in the trial at the earliest, preferably by the quarter ending 30th September, 2015. Since the trial Court has failed to conclude the proceedings as directed, therefore, the comments of Learned Additional Sessions Judge have been called. The perusal of the comments now received reveals that the proceedings in the trial could not be completed due to rush of work and non- co-operation of learned counsel representing the accused who did not agree for listing of trial during the circuit of the Court at Palampur or Baijnath. Any how, the comments so furnished are not satisfactory as learned trial Judge should have expedited the proceedings in the trial at the earliest as directed. In the event of there being nonco- operation by the defence counsel or anyone else coercive method should have been adopted to conclude the proceedings. Any how, the comments so furnished are not satisfactory as learned trial Judge should have expedited the proceedings in the trial at the earliest as directed. In the event of there being nonco- operation by the defence counsel or anyone else coercive method should have been adopted to conclude the proceedings. The complainant and two more witnesses namely Baldev Singh and Ravi Kumar were already examined on 19.5.2015 as recorded in the order on that day passed in Cr.MP.(M) No. 495 of 2015. Now as per the comments received only the witnesses from Sr. No.1 to 13 in the list of witnesses stands examined meaning thereby that after 19.5.2015 till date only 10 witnesses have been examined. Learned trial Court should have accelerated the proceedings in the trial as besides the accused, two more accused are still languishing in jail for the last three years in this case. Any how the proceedings in the trial be now completed and the same disposed of finally by the quarter ending 30.6.2016 5. Now coming to the question as to whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to be admitted on bail or not, no doubt the allegations against him and his coaccused are not only heinous but serious in nature because while his co-accused Amit Kumar allegedly strangulated the complainant with a rope, the accused-petitioner and his other co-accused had inflicted injuries on his person with sharp edged weapon. However, at this stage,the statements of the witnesses at Sr. No. 1 to 13 of the list of witnesses including that of complainant stand recorded and as the accused-petitioner is in judicial custody for a period about three years and the trial is likely to take some more time for its completion, it may not be in the interest of justice to confine him behind the bar any further well before if ultimately held guilty by the Trial Court on the completion of the trial . Above all he is an young man of 22 years of age having his wife and minor daughter to support. No doubt, he belongs to Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab),however, while admitting him on bail, suitable conditions qua restricting his movement and also to ensure his presence during the course of further proceedings in the trial can be imposed upon him. 6. The application is, therefore, allowed. No doubt, he belongs to Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab),however, while admitting him on bail, suitable conditions qua restricting his movement and also to ensure his presence during the course of further proceedings in the trial can be imposed upon him. 6. The application is, therefore, allowed. Consequently the accused-petitioner is ordered to be admitted on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- (rupees Fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge. The accused-petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions: that he shall:- (a) make himself available for the purpose of trial on each and every date of hearing and in case prevented to do so due to any unforeseen circumstances shall seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application in the trial Court; (b) not temper with the prosecution evidence and 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; (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. (e) shall keep on reporting to the Station House Officer Police Station, Palampur once in a calender month to apprise the said Officer about his whereabouts during the pendency of trial. 7. 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. 8. 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. An authenticated copy of this order be sent to Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala for future guidance and compliance.