Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 475 (HP)

Naresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-04-26

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. 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. 154 of 2018, dated 12.06.2018, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station West, Shimla, 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 resident of the place 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 11.06.2018 police were informed that in village Fagera Gian Chand (deceased) has been murdered by someone. Police went to the spot and recorded the statement of one Shri Sohan Lal son of the deceased (complainant), under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant stated in his statement that his father used to live alone in their ancestral home and on 11.06.2018, at about 09:30 p.m. he received a telephonic call from the son of his uncle, who told him that the petitioner alongwith co-accused Prem Singh gave beatings to the deceased. He further disclosed that the petitioner and the co-accused were taking liquor with the deceased. When the complainant reached the spot, the gory dead body of the deceased was found in a room. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and there were two empty bottles of liquor, one half filled bottle of liquor, two steel glasses etc. in the room. The complainant further contended that on 03.06.2018 the petitioner picked up quarrel with the deceased and to this effect an FIR was lodged. The complainant raised suspicion that the petitioner alongwith accused Prem Singh killed the deceased. On the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and investigation ensued. The corpse was sent for postmortem examination to IGMC, Shimla and scientific samples were preserved. As per the medical opinion, the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock owing to injuries to vital structure of neck. Forensic team also visited the spot and lifted scientific samples for examination. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and on 12.06.2018 the petitioner and the co-accused were arrested. As per the medical opinion, the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock owing to injuries to vital structure of neck. Forensic team also visited the spot and lifted scientific samples for examination. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and on 12.06.2018 the petitioner and the co-accused were arrested. On 14.06.2018 accused Prem Singh got his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and got recovered shoes and slippers. Accused Prem Singh also got recovered the remains of clothes, which he was wearing at the time of the commission of the crime, burnt by him. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that on 11.06.2018 the petitioner and co-accused took liquor with the deceased and a quarrel ensued. Accused Prem Singh gave a blow of glass liquor bottle on the head of the deceased and he died. The petitioner alongwith co-accused Prem Singh killed the accused. DNA profiling report has been received. As per the police, the investigation clearly demonstrates the involvement of the petitioner and the co-accused in killing the deceased. Challan stands presented in the Court on 07.09.2018 and after receipt of SFSL report, supplementary challan will be presented. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was involved in a heinous crime and in case, at this stage, the petitioner is released on bail, he 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 petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a heinous crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It has been argued that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a heinous crime and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It has been argued that the bail application of the petitioner may 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. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the heinousness of the crime, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have taken place, the fact that in case the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he will be in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may also flee from justice and also considering the overall material, which has come on record, this Court finds that present is not a fit case to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage. So, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.