Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 706 (HP)

Hans Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-06-13

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. (oral) 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. 301 of 2017, dated 27.11.2017, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 325, 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, 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 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, police recorded the statement of Shri Vijay Kumar (injured) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per his statement, on 27.11.2017, at about 09:30 p.m., when he was returning home with his father, Shri Om Prakash, behind their house hans Raj (petitioner herein), Amit Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Veena Devi and Kamla Devi were quarreling and they were using abusive language. When the father of the complainant objected, the above said persons started beating them. The petitioner gave a stick blow on the head of the father of the complainant and he fell down. The complainant also sustained injuries and on hearing their screams, his brothers came on the spot, but they were also given beatings. On the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Police photographed the spot. Police made the relevant recoveries. The injured persons were medically examined. Injured, Shri Om Prakash (father of the complainant) was taken Neuro Surgeon, Vivekanand Medical Institute, Palampur and as per his opinion injury sustained by him was dangerous to life and he was not found to be fit for giving statement. The petitioner and the other co-accused were arrested and they were enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. Treatment summary qua injured Shri Om Prakash was obtained and as per the final opinion, which was based upon Neurosurgery report, injury sustained by him was dangerous to life. Injured Om Prakash remained unconscious till 12.10.2018, on which date he died. As per the medical opinion the deceased died due to septic shock due to head injury. Treatment summary qua injured Shri Om Prakash was obtained and as per the final opinion, which was based upon Neurosurgery report, injury sustained by him was dangerous to life. Injured Om Prakash remained unconscious till 12.10.2018, on which date he died. As per the medical opinion the deceased died due to septic shock due to head injury. On 28.12.2018 the petitioner was arrested and he is in custody. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and in case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that there are cross FIRs and the deceased had died after more than one year from the date of alleged occurrence. 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 neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place, so he may be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and the deceased had died due to the injury inflicted by the petitioner. He has further argued that in case the petitioner 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 Counsel for the petitioner has argued that it has come in the cross FIR that the assailants, including the deceased, were having chilly powder with them and the same was thrown in the eyes of the petitioner. He has further argued that the deceased had died much after the occurrence and he was discharged from the hospital. He has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the deceased had died much after the occurrence and he was discharged from the hospital. He 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, after taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, the fact that he is behind the bars for considerable time, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have taken place, the petitioner is resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and all other material, which has come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the ends of justice would only be met in case the petitioner is released on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 301 of 2017, dated 27.11.2017, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 325, 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly 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 Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.