Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 422 (HP)

Roshan Lal (In jail) v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-04-06

P.S.RANA

body2016
ORDER : 1. Present bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail relating to FIR No. 286 of 2014 dated 15.11.2014 registered under Sections 302, 452, 323, 506 IPC at P.S. Sunder Nagar District Mandi (H.P.) 2. It is pleaded that petitioner is implicated in present case falsely. It is pleaded that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. It is pleaded that petitioner will not tamper with prosecution witnesses and will join investigation and trial regularly and will not leave India without permission of Court. It is pleaded that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner. Prayer for acceptance of bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report on 14.11.2014 at about 6.30 PM Smt. Champa Devi telephoned the deceased and thereafter deceased informed that he would come to residential house. There is further recital in police report that at about 7.30 night when Smt. Champa Devi was in her residential house she heard cries of deceased from fields and when Champa Devi reached the field she saw that accused Roshan Lal who is uncle of deceased caught the deceased from neck and when complainant raised hue and cry then accused left the deceased in critical condition. There is further recital in police report that thereafter deceased was brought to hospital for his medical treatment but deceased was declared dead by medical officer. There is further recital in police report that there is dispute between accused and deceased relating to immovable land. There is recital in police report that after registration of FIR site plan prepared and photographs obtained and blood clotted soil and control samples took into possession and statements of witnesses recorded. As per post mortem report deceased had died due to blunt trauma. There is recital in police report that petitioner will threat the prosecution witnesses in case petitioner is released on bail. Prayer for rejection of bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in present bail application:- 1. Whether bail application filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C. by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. 5. Following points arise for determination in present bail application:- 1. Whether bail application filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C. by petitioner is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No. 1 with reasons 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and on this ground bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Facts whether petitioner is innocent or not cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided by learned trial Court after giving due opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that investigation is completed and investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure already filed in competent Court of law and any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner and on these grounds bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) Character of evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) Larger interests of the public or the State. Gurcharan Singh and Others vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 and State vs. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 . In present case allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature qua commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then trial of case will be adversely effected and interest of State and general public will also be adversely effected. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature qua commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder and if bail is granted to petitioner then petitioner will threat the prosecution witnesses and trial will also be adversely effected and on these grounds bail application be declined is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of Court that if petitioner is released on bail then petitioner will threat and induce the prosecution witnesses. Court is of the opinion that in view of grave allegations of culpable homicide amounting to murder against the petitioner it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Final order) 9. In view of my findings on point No. 1 bail application filed by petitioner under Section 439 Cr. P.C. is rejected. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Bail petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure stands disposed of. All pending applications if any also disposed of.