Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 80 (HP)

Amit Sharma v. State of H. P.

2015-01-29

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2015
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral) Petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 165/14 registered against him and his co-accused Vivek Rattan, Raman Rattan, Rahul Sharma and his wife (name withheld) under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra. 2. Perusal of the status report and the record reveals that the accused-petitioner has been booked in the case with the allegations that on 23.09.2014 around 9.15 am, when he unlocked door of room of his house found one Dev Raj (since dead), coming out and ran away therefrom. He was caught hold by the accused-petitioner and his co-accused and administered beatings. He succumbed to the injuries he received in the occurrence and died in the hospital while under treatment. The record further reveals that the deceased had relations with the wife of the accused-petitioner, who hails from Baijnath area where the deceased was running a barber shop and before her marriage, she was also working in a beauty parlour there. They both had old intimacy. She used to call the deceased even after her marriage also and he has been going to her house at village Gangot, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. On the day of occurrence also, he was in the house of the accused-petitioner. His wife made him to hide in the room by locking the same from outside. The accused-petitioner having felt the presence of someone in the room got the door unlocked. The deceased, who was inside the room pushed away the accused-petitioner and ran away. He, however, was caught hold and administered beatings. 3. The defence of the accused-petitioner, as emerges from the investigation conducted at this stage, is that the deceased was not administered beatings but he fell down from Dhank while running in order to save himself from the clutches of the accused persons. On account of having fallen down, he received injuries and subsequently died in the hospital. 4. The investigation in the case is complete as the challan stands filed in the Court. The committal proceedings though at initial stage, however, are in progress, as the case is now stated to be listed on 09.02.2015 for supplying copies of charge sheet to the accused persons. 5. The investigation conducted prima-facie reveals that the cause of death of deceased Dev Raj was his relations with the wife of the accused-petitioner. The committal proceedings though at initial stage, however, are in progress, as the case is now stated to be listed on 09.02.2015 for supplying copies of charge sheet to the accused persons. 5. The investigation conducted prima-facie reveals that the cause of death of deceased Dev Raj was his relations with the wife of the accused-petitioner. As per the record available, there cannot be said to be any controversy so as to presence of the deceased in one of the rooms of the house where, he was lying locked. Whether he had relations with the wife of the accused-petitioner or he was locked inside the room by her, are the facts, which need evidence for its proof and the same can only be produced at an appropriate stage in the trial in the event of the charge against the accused-petitioner is framed. At this stage, even if it is believed that he was administered beatings by the accused party, prima-facie, it so happened on account of sudden provocation, because finding the deceased lying locked in the room obviously resulted in suspicion in the mind of the accused-petitioner qua relations of the deceased with his wife and ultimately in sudden provocation which led in administering beatings by the accused-petitioner to the deceased. The possibility of the deceased having fallen while running away to save his life cannot also be ruled-out because as per the post-mortem report available on record, only one injury could be detected that too on the middle region of temporal bone, which normally can even be caused in a case of fall. The accused-petitioner has been arrested on the day of the registration of the case itself. He presently is in judicial custody. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he is an influential person or that in the event of admitted on bail, he is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence and hamper the investigation of the case. 6. Therefore, without lamenting much on the merits of the case suffice would it to say that in the given facts and circumstances and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, the present a fit case where further detention of the accused-petitioner in judicial custody would be unwarranted. 7. This application is, therefore, allowed. 6. Therefore, without lamenting much on the merits of the case suffice would it to say that in the given facts and circumstances and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, the present a fit case where further detention of the accused-petitioner in judicial custody would be unwarranted. 7. This application is, therefore, allowed. Consequently, the accused-petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 165/14 registered against him in Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/any other Judicial Magistrate at Dehra, District, Kangra. The accused-petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions: that he shall:- (a) regularly attend the trial Court on each and every hearing 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. 8. 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. 9. 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.