Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1401 (HP)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-09-18

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 66 of 2018, dated 09.09.2018, under Sections 302, 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act, registered in Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 09.09.2018, at about 07:40 p.m., Shri Amar Nath telephonically informed the police that his brother Shri Fauna Ram (deceased), age 72 years, has been beaten. Acting upon the information, the police rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He alleged that on 09.09.2018, at about 05:30/6 p.m., when he went to his field for throwing manure, Sanju, Bhindu, Prithu Chand and Daunfa Ram started beating him with stones. He raised hue and cry and shouted for help, but no one came for his help, however, somehow he managed to rescue himself and came to his home. His family members informed the police and the police shifted him to RH, Hamirpur, for medical treatment. Police registered a case and the investigation ensued. On 11.09.2018 Shri Fauna Ram died, so the police got conducted his postmortem. Scientific samples were sent to RFSL, Mandi, for analysis and on 11.09.2018 Prithi Chand and his sons Ranjeet Singh and Vijay Singh were called by the police. Fourth accused, Daunfa Ram, on 08.09.2018 went to Delhi, as he is serving in Indian Army at Leh. On 13.09.2018 accused Vijay Kumar (petitioner herein) was arrested and he made a disclosure statement and also got recovered the stones, which were used for beating the deceased. As per the medical opinion, the possibility of injuries No. 1 and 2 sustained by the deceased with stones recovered by the police was not ruled out. On 13.09.2018 accused Vijay Kumar (petitioner herein) was arrested and he made a disclosure statement and also got recovered the stones, which were used for beating the deceased. As per the medical opinion, the possibility of injuries No. 1 and 2 sustained by the deceased with stones recovered by the police was not ruled out. Scientific samples were collected and sent for forensic analysis and as per the report received, the cause of the death was opined to be traumatic intestinal perforation leading to peritonitis and sepsis. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that there is land dispute between the parties. The petitioner and other accused persons belong to upper caste, whereas the deceased belonged to scheduled caste, so Section 3(2)(5) of the SC&ST Act was added. During the course of investigation, involvement of Ranjeet Singh and Prithi Chand was not found in the alleged offence. On 10.12.2018 challan was presented in the learned Trial Court against the petitioner. During the investigation it was found that Bakant flew from Delhi to Leh on 09.09.2019 and his involvement in the offence was not found. Police did not find any evidence qua the involvement of Prithi Chand and Ranjeet Singh, however, supplementary challan had been presented in the learned Trial Court on 08.07.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the trial is proceedings towards its last stage and in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner committed a heinous crime, so his bail application may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued even as per the Investigating Officer the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. He has argued the trial is in its final stages, so the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is resident of the place, thus he is not in a position to flee from justice. He has argued the trial is in its final stages, so the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is resident of the place, thus he is not in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court and the trial is at its final stages, so the bail application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court and the trial is in its final stages, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the trial is in its final stages, the Investigating Officer has explained qua the timing recorded, viz-a-viz the location of the petitioner, the fact that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused with stone and resultantly he died, as per the medical opinion, the fact that the eye witnesses have stated that it was the petitioner who threw stones on the deceased and also considering all the material, which has come on record and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 66 of 2018, dated 09.09.2018, under Sections 302, 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act, registered in Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 09.09.2018, at about 07:40 p.m., Shri Amar Nath telephonically informed the police that his brother Shri Fauna Ram (deceased), age 72 years, has been beaten. Acting upon the information, the police rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He alleged that on 09.09.2018, at about 05:30/6 p.m., when he went to his field for throwing manure, Sanju, Bhindu, Prithu Chand and Daunfa Ram started beating him with stones. He raised hue and cry and shouted for help, but no one came for his help, however, somehow he managed to rescue himself and came to his home. His family members informed the police and the police shifted him to RH, Hamirpur, for medical treatment. Police registered a case and the investigation ensued. On 11.09.2018 Shri Fauna Ram died, so the police got conducted his postmortem. Scientific samples were sent to RFSL, Mandi, for analysis and on 11.09.2018 Prithi Chand and his sons Ranjeet Singh and Vijay Singh were called by the police. Fourth accused, Daunfa Ram, on 08.09.2018 went to Delhi, as he is serving in Indian Army at Leh. On 13.09.2018 accused Vijay Kumar (petitioner herein) was arrested and he made a disclosure statement and also got recovered the stones, which were used for beating the deceased. Fourth accused, Daunfa Ram, on 08.09.2018 went to Delhi, as he is serving in Indian Army at Leh. On 13.09.2018 accused Vijay Kumar (petitioner herein) was arrested and he made a disclosure statement and also got recovered the stones, which were used for beating the deceased. As per the medical opinion, the possibility of injuries No. 1 and 2 sustained by the deceased with stones recovered by the police was not ruled out. Scientific samples were collected and sent for forensic analysis and as per the report received, the cause of the death was opined to be traumatic intestinal perforation leading to peritonitis and sepsis. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that there is land dispute between the parties. The petitioner and other accused persons belong to upper caste, whereas the deceased belonged to scheduled caste, so Section 3(2)(5) of the SC&ST Act was added. During the course of investigation, involvement of Ranjeet Singh and Prithi Chand was not found in the alleged offence. On 10.12.2018 challan was presented in the learned Trial Court against the petitioner. During the investigation it was found that Bakant flew from Delhi to Leh on 09.09.2019 and his involvement in the offence was not found. Police did not find any evidence qua the involvement of Prithi Chand and Ranjeet Singh, however, supplementary challan had been presented in the learned Trial Court on 08.07.2019. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the trial is proceedings towards its last stage and in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner committed a heinous crime, so his bail application may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued even as per the Investigating Officer the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. He has argued the trial is in its final stages, so the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has further argued even as per the Investigating Officer the petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. He has argued the trial is in its final stages, so the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is resident of the place, thus he is not in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court and the trial is at its final stages, so the bail application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court and the trial is in its final stages, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the trial is in its final stages, the Investigating Officer has explained qua the timing recorded, viz-a-viz the location of the petitioner, the fact that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused with stone and resultantly he died, as per the medical opinion, the fact that the eye witnesses have stated that it was the petitioner who threw stones on the deceased and also considering all the material, which has come on record and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.