Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2432 (HP)

ABHINAV AWASTHI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2016-11-17

SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. ASI Kishori Chand of Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is present along with Record. Report perused and taken on record. 2. On 12.5.2016, petitioner Abinav Awathi was arrested, in connection with murder of Manish Kumar, pursuant to registration of FIR No. 52/2016, dated 12.5.2016, at Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, for commission of offence under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In October 2016, petitioner applied for bail, which came to be rejected by the trial Court. He has now filed the instant petition, for grant of regular bail, under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It is a matter of record that investigation is complete. Challan already stands presented in Court. Presently, no recovery is sought to be effected from the petitioner nor is he required for interrogation. 5. The background, which led to the alleged crime, as is so evident from the report of the Investigating Officer, is that on 11.5.2016, students of various educational institutions had organised a Cricket Tournament, in the premises of a school at Prei. The bail petitioner was the score keeper. An alleged error on his part, led to an altercation between the students, which resulted into a scuffle, in which he allegedly gave a blow with a bat to the deceased, resulting into infliction of serious injuries and eventually his death. 6. It is a matter of record that the co-accused already stands released on bail by the trial Court itself. 7. No doubt, the alleged role ascribed to the petitioner and his involvement in the alleged crime is serious, but considering the attending circumstances in its entirety, more so for the reason that petitioner is a student, not having any antecedents of his involvement in crime, of any nature, and the fact that the challan stands presented in Court, as also the fact that the alleged crime came to be committed at the spur of moment, it would be in the interest of justice that the present petitioner is no longer kept in judicial confinement and is enlarged on bail. 8. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. 8. The 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. 9. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the apex Court held as under: "40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering a petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing." 10. Both of them relate to ensure the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing." 10. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. 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; (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 11. Petitioner, who is just 19 years of age and pursuing his studies in Electrical Trade, at an Industrial Training Institute in District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is a permanent resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh. His father has got landed property and there is no likelihood or apprehension of his jumping the bail. 12. Hence, having holistically considered the nature of offence and the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner, I feel that it is a fit case in which petitioner should be enlarged on bail. 13. As such, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, try to influence the witnesses or in any manner conduct himself as to disentitle him from the discretionary power; shall not leave the jurisdiction of the territorial limits of Police Station, Shahpur, without informing the Station House Officer; also, he shall always make himself available during trial. 14. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide letter No. HHCVIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV-7139, dated 18.3.2013. 15. 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. Application stands disposed of.