Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 894 (HP)

Tayag Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-12-15

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail, in case FIR No. 56 of 2020, dated 15.04.2020, under Section 302 of IPC, registered at Police Station Anni, District Kullu, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, 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, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emerges from the records, is that on 15.04.2020, complainant Ram Dass came to police station and made a complainant, wherein it has been alleged that on 14.04.2020, accused Tayag Raj (who is nephew of the complainant and grandson of deceased Nikka Ram), alongwith Shiv Ram and Ram Singh, was engaged in construction of toilet work in the house of deceased and after completing the day work, Shiv Ram and Ram Singh left for their houses, whereas, the accused stayed with the deceased in his room. On 15.04.2020, one Nitu Ram telephonically informed the complainant that yesterday evening, loud sounds of opening and closing of the door was coming from the room of the deceased. The complainant after receiving such information, came to the house of his father alongwith Shiv Ram and found that his father was lying unconscious in the corner of the room, blood was oozing out from his nose and the cloths, which he was wearing, were also torn. Thereafter, the complainant with the help of other persons, tried to shift his father to the hospital, however, while he was on his way to hospital, his father succumbed to the injuries, near his house. As per the allegations of the complainant, the accused killed his father, because his father would have been forced by the accused to register the property in his name and when he would have refused, he has been killed. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, FIR No. 56 of 2020, dated 15.04.2020, under Section 302 of IPC, came to be registered against the accused. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, FIR No. 56 of 2020, dated 15.04.2020, under Section 302 of IPC, came to be registered against the accused. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and there is possibility that in case he is released on bail he may tamper/hamper the prosecution case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report(s), carefully. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner was having no property dispute with his grandfather (deceased), as the property stood already divided by the deceased amongst his sons, way back. He has argued that the instant case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and nobody has seen the petitioner killing the deceased. He has further argued that the deceased was habitual drinker and on the day of alleged incident, the deceased was also drinking liquor with two other persons and he might have died on account of a fall on the floor, due to excess consumption of liquor. Lastly, it is prayed that since there is no involvement of the petitioner in this case and entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, the present bail application be allowed and the accused, who is lodged in the jail for last eight months, be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, bail application filed by the petitioner deserves dismissal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts which have come on record, especially the circumstantial evidence and gravity of the offence. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts which have come on record, especially the circumstantial evidence and gravity of the offence. Further, taking into consideration the manner, in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, coupled with the contents of MLC of the accused, mentioned in the status report, wherein injury was found on his right hand, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour, as the case is at the initial stage and statements of the witnesses are yet to be recorded and at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper/hamper the prosecution case. Consequently, the instant bail application, sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposing of this bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. 9. In view of the above, the petition, so also pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.