Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 719 (HP)

Yashpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-10-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The matter is taken up through video conference. 2. 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. 276 of 2017, dated 09.09.2017, under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, registered in Police Station Haroli District Una, Himachal Pradesh 3. 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 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. 4. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 09.09.2017 police of Police Station Haroli, District Una, was informed from CHC, Haroli, that a person has been brought there, who is dead. Police immediately rushed to CHC, Haroli, where one Shri Baldev Singh (complainant) got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant stated that on 08.07.2017 one Tirth Ram, who is resident of their village, went to his bada (shack) through a passage, which is not common passage and goes through their maize fields, and he returned in the evening from the same passage. While said Tirth Ram was returning, his nephews Shri Vipin Kumar (deceased) and Shri Sandeep Kumar saw him stealing corns, so they bullied him and he ran away. Later on, the deceased and Shri Sandeep Kumar asked Tirth Ram, as to why he was stealing corn, and he answered that he did not steal. Revengefully, when on 09.09.2017 the deceased and Shri Sandeep Kumar were leaving on a motorcycle to Tahliwal for receiving their friend, said Tirth Ram came hurling abuses and he was joined by his son Yashpal @ Nanha (petitioner herein), who attacked his nephews and inflicted injuries with some sharp edged weapon. Resultantly, both, the deceased and Shri Sandeep Kumar fell down and started bleeding. The complainant and his daughter, namely, Savita @ Pinki lifted them and in the interregnum petitioner fled away. The deceased was immediately shifted to CHC, Haroli, however, en route, he succumbed to his injuries. Resultantly, both, the deceased and Shri Sandeep Kumar fell down and started bleeding. The complainant and his daughter, namely, Savita @ Pinki lifted them and in the interregnum petitioner fled away. The deceased was immediately shifted to CHC, Haroli, however, en route, he succumbed to his injuries. Upon the statement, so made by the complainant, police registered a case under apt Sections of IPC and the investigation commenced. Police visited the spot of occurrence, prepared the spot map, photographed the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Scientific samples were collected and sent for forensic examination. Medico legal certificate of injured Shri Sandeep Kumar, was procured and the injured was referred to RH, Una, for further treatment. Postmortem examination on the corpse of the deceased was conducted in RPGMC, Tanda, and the postmortem report was procured. A forensic team visited the spot of occurrence and lifted scientific samples for examination. On 10.09.2017 the petitioner was arrested and medically examined. Upon the identification of the petitioner, clothes worn by him at the time of commission of crime and the knife, which was used by him for inflicting injuries, were taken into possession. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that due to vengeance, Sandeep Kumar (brother of the deceased), named one Jarnail Singh as an accomplice. As per the police, on 06.12.2017, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and supplementary challans were also presented. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a grievous and serious offence, trial is in its last stage and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. 5. 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. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and most of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, so the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence. He has further argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this final stage of trial, he may flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than three years and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, most of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the same is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact that the trial is in its final stage and in case at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, also considering the fact that the petitioner is resident of the place and, in fact, also has his permanent abode near to the house of the deceased, so chances of further untoward incident cannot be ruled out and also considering overall material, which has come on record, and without elaborately discussing the same, 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. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 10. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined to the adjudication of the extant petition and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case.