Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 305 (HP)

Anoop Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-03-20

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 28 of 2017, dated 09.04.2017, under Sections 302, 120B, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 181, 192, 196 of MV Act, registered in Police Station Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place, 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 them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 30.03.2017 Shri Nand Lal (complainant), who is brother of Shri Gopal (the deceased), lodged a missing report of the deceased with the police. However, the deceased could not be traced. On 09.04.2017 Shri Dharam Chand, father of the deceased, got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He stated that the deceased used to study in DAV College, Banikhet, and he used to reside in a rented accommodation at Banikhet. He has further stated that on 24.03.2017, at about 10:00 p.m., the deceased went to meet his friend Bandna @ Pooja, who is student of DAV College. On 28.03.2017 Bandna asked about the whereabouts of the deceased by making a call to his son Bipin (brother of the deceased). The deceased used to talk with Bandna, his mobile phone was found in her room and brother-in-law (jija) picked up a quarrel with the deceased five months back, so the complainant had suspicion that these persons could have abducted the deceased. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered and the police investigation ensued. Police interrogated Anoop Kumar (petitioner herein), accused Bandna Kumari and many others, but no clue qua the deceased was found. On 01.04.2017, Bandna produced cell phone of the deceased to the police and on 27.05.2017 dead body of the deceased was found in Chaura Dam. Police prepared the spot map of the place of recovery of dead body of the deceased and also photographed the same. The dead body was identified by the parents of the deceased. On 01.04.2017, Bandna produced cell phone of the deceased to the police and on 27.05.2017 dead body of the deceased was found in Chaura Dam. Police prepared the spot map of the place of recovery of dead body of the deceased and also photographed the same. The dead body was identified by the parents of the deceased. Police completed all the formalities; postmortem on the dead body was got conducted and the scientific samples were sent for forensic analysis. Petitioner, Anoop Kumar, and accused Bandna were arrested and they were medically examined. During the course of interrogation, accused Bandna divulged that she has friendship with one Sunil Kumar and they wanted to marry, but the deceased was creating hurdles in their marriage. Accused Bandna further disclosed that on 25.03.2017 she alongwith one Prabhat Singh and Sunil Kumar administered some tablet to the deceased and when he was unconscious, they threw him in the dam. Police arrested Prabhat Singh and Sunil Kumar. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. When accused Bandna was strenuously interrogated, she divulged that on 24.03.2017 Anoop Kumar and his two friends came to her room and she called the deceased to her room. She further divulged that they all killed the deceased and threw his dead body in the dam. During the course of investigation no evidence was found against Sunil Kumar and Prabhat Singh. Accused Bandna made a disclosure statement, whereby she got identified the room where the deceased was murdered by them and also the place where his dead body was thrown. Police prepared the spot maps and also photographed the spots. Police also impounded vehicle, having registration No. HP 39-5094, which was allegedly used as alleged. On the basis of the statement of accused Bandna, Manish Kumar (another petitioner herein) was arrested. As per the police investigation, petitioners Anoop Kumar, Manish Kumar and accused Bandna were involved in the murder of the deceased. Petitioner Manish Kumar confessed his guilt and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. After exhaustive investigation, police found that the petitioners and accused Bandna killed the deceased and threw his dead body in the dam. Police conducted all other formalities and chemical analysis report was procured. Petitioner Manish Kumar confessed his guilt and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. After exhaustive investigation, police found that the petitioners and accused Bandna killed the deceased and threw his dead body in the dam. Police conducted all other formalities and chemical analysis report was procured. It has also come in the investigation that the alleged vehicle (HP39-5094), which was allegedly used in the crime, was purchased by petitioner Anoop Kumar, but he could not produce any document qua the vehicle. After conclusion of investigation, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court. In the forensic report it has come that "the possibility of carrying victim's body in the dickey of the car and dumping into the dam could not be ruled out". DNA report is yet to be received from SFSL, Junga. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence. The police found involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the crime and the scientific evidence also speaks volumes qua the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. The prosecution has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as there is strong possibility that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 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 petitioners has argued that the petitioners were not at all involved in the present case. It is further argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that investigation in the present case is complete and challan stands filed in the learned Trial Court, so the petitioners be enlarged on bail, as they are residents of the place and neither in a position to temper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a heinous crime and during the police investigation it has come that they have murdered the deceased and threw his body in the dam. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a heinous crime and during the police investigation it has come that they have murdered the deceased and threw his body in the dam. He has further argued that the petitioners may not be released on bail, as in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of the offence, the applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this moment, considering the allegations against the petitioners, the nature of the offence, which is heinous in nature, and on bare perusal of the records, this Court finds that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and there is possibility that in case they are enlarged on bail, they may temper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Thus, at this stage, it will not be apt to exercise the discretionary powers vested in this Court by enlarging the petitioners on bail. So, the bail applications of the petitioners, which are devoid of merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.