Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 87 (HP)

Raman Rattan v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2015-02-04

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (Oral). Pursuant to notice issued by this court on 2.2.2015, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report and the Investigating Officer Yash Pal has produced the record. 2. The petitioner is co-accused in FIR No. 165/14 registered against him and his co-accused Amit Sharma and his wife (name withheld) and one Rahul Sharma under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Dehra, District, Kangra. 3. 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 his co-accused Amit Sharma unlocked the door of a room of his house, he found one Dev Raj (since dead), having come out and hurriedly ran away, however, he along with his co-accused caught hold him and also administered the beatings. Deceased Dev Raj 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 principal accused Amit Sharma. She allegedly hails from Baijnath area where the deceased was running a barber shop and before her marriage with accused Amit Sharma, she was also working in a beauty parlour there. The deceased and the wife of accused had, therefore, old intimacy. She used to call the deceased to the place of her in-laws at village Gangot, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra even after her marriage. Even on the day of occurrence, he was called by the wife of principal accused Amit Sharma. She made the deceased to hide in the room by locking the same from outside. Her husband accused Amit Sharma having sensed the presence of someone in the room got the door unlocked. The deceased, who was inside the room pushed aside the said accused and ran away. He, however, was caught hold by principal accused Amit Sharma with the help of accused-petitioner and was administered beatings, as a result thereof he died in the hospital while under treatment. 4. The defence of the accused person, 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. 4. The defence of the accused person, 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. 5. The investigation in the case is complete as the challan stands filed in the Court. The committal proceedings though are at initial stage, however, 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. 6. The investigation conducted prima-facie reveals that the cause of death of deceased Dev Raj was his illicit relations with the wife of principal accused Amit Sharma. 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 accused Amit Sharma or he was locked inside the room by her, are 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 and his co-accused 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 accused Amit Sharma qua relations of his wife with the deceased and ultimately in sudden provocation which led in administering beatings by him to the deceased with the help of accused-petitioner. 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 also. The accused-petitioner has been arrested on 28.9.2014. He presently is in judicial custody. The accused-petitioner has been arrested on 28.9.2014. He presently is in judicial custody. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he is 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. 7. 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 is a fit case where further detention of the accused-petitioner in judicial custody would be unwarranted. 8. Here it would be pertinent to note that the other co-accused including the main accused Amit Sharma have already been ordered to be released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary). The prosecution otherwise has not been able to convince me that the role of the petitioner herein is in any way different or more serious than those of the co-accused. 9. The 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-petitioners 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. 10. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuse 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. 11. (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 10. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuse 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. 11. Any observation made hereinabove 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 hereinabove.