Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1420 (HP)

Vijay Kumar @ Viju v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-12-20

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 147/14 registered against him and his co-accused namely, Krishna Devi, Kamla Devi and one Sant Ram under Sections 302, 212 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, with the allegations that they all hatched conspiracy and as a result thereof accused-petitioner has murdered one Ajay Kumar during the night intervening 11/12.11.2014 at village Khakhrola, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. The allegations against the accused-petitioner, in a nut-shell, are that he was hiding himself behind a mango tree and when seen there by the complainant, PW-1 Balwant Singh, Raghubir Singh and one Tek Chand as well as deceased Ajay Kumar who were traveling from Nogli to Rampur in Bolero Camper No. HP-06-0750 in its light. PW-1 has stopped the vehicle at that place. The accused when asked as to what he was doing there, he revealed to PW-1 Balwant Singh and others that his vehicle had stuck up on the road and sought there assistance to get the same removed from that place. On this, deceased and Tek Chand allegedly alighted from Bolero Camper, whereas, PW-1 and Raghubir Singh proceeded ahead to the destination at village Khakhrola to park Bolero Camper. When deceased Ajay Kumar did not come back, they called him repeatedly on his cell number, but he did not respond. Then they went in his search and found him lying dead near that mango tree. The co-accused of the accused-petitioner were also present there. In the report made to the police by Balwant Singh, the accused-petitioner was suspected to have killed deceased Ajay Kumar. He was arrested on 30.11.2014 in this case and since then is in judicial custody. His co-accused were also arrested in this case. They, however, have since been admitted on bail. 2. The trial of this case is in progress. The statements of material prosecution witnesses have since been recorded. The formal witnesses including the doctor(s) are left to be examined. 3. Having gone through the record of this case and also the evidence recorded by learned trial Court, at this stage, there is no direct evidence to show that it is the accused-petitioner who has murdered deceased Ajay Kumar. The present rather is a case of circumstantial evidence. The material prosecution witnesses are Balwant Singh PW-1 and Med Ram PW-2. 3. Having gone through the record of this case and also the evidence recorded by learned trial Court, at this stage, there is no direct evidence to show that it is the accused-petitioner who has murdered deceased Ajay Kumar. The present rather is a case of circumstantial evidence. The material prosecution witnesses are Balwant Singh PW-1 and Med Ram PW-2. Although, it is not appropriate to elaborate their statements as has come on record by way of their testimonies, yet suffice would it to say that further detention of accused-petitioner in judicial custody, in the given facts and circumstances is not warranted. Why the accused-petitioner would have killed Ajay Kumar, cogent and clinching evidence qua this aspect is missing. The so called motive in the statement of PW-8 Kushal, who happens to be the Constable in Police Department and brother of deceased Ajay Kumar seems to be not plausible. The accused-petitioner is a young boy of 25 years of age. The deceased as per record was also a young boy of 26 years of age. Whether the accused-petitioner, who according to the prosecution story was in a drunkard condition and was even vomiting also how he alone could have killed a robust young man aged 26 years is again a question, which needs consideration by learned trial Court at an appropriate stage on appreciation of the evidence. Not only this but the accused-petitioner belongs to the same area i.e. Village Nogli, Tehsil Rampur, hence local resident. In the event of he is admitted on bail, there is no likelihood of his fleeing away from justice. Otherwise also, appropriate conditions can be imposed upon him in the event of ordered to be released on bail. 4. Having said so as well as the given facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed. Consequently, the accused-petitioner Vijay Kumar @ Viju who presently is in judicial custody in connection with the case registered in Police Station, Rampur vide FIR No. 147/14 is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge. Consequently, the accused-petitioner Vijay Kumar @ Viju who presently is in judicial custody in connection with the case registered in Police Station, Rampur vide FIR No. 147/14 is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge. The accused-petitioner shall further abide by the following conditions:- He shall ; (a) regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and 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 Investigating Officer. (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 5. 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. 6. 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. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.