Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 278 (HP)

Rajesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-04-30

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The instant petitions are maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 124 of 2020, dated 25.10.2020, under Sections 302, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, 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 permanent residents of District Solan, thus 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. Tersely the facts of the case are that on 24.10.2020, on being informed, police rushed to CHC, Kunihar, where statement of Shri Kuldeep Kumar (complainant) was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant stated that on 22.10.2020, at about 07:30 p.m., he was with his friends, i.e., Naresh, Lucky and Dalip at Haripur School ground and they were going, on foot to a marriage ceremony. A car, having registration No. HP64A 1063, stopped and the petitioners and Meena Ram (co-accused) alighted. Co-accused asked them, whether they use narcotics and when Naresh refused, he slapped Naresh and threatened them. On 24.10.2020, at about 06/06:15 p.m., when the complainant was returning to his home from the home of his uncle, namely Shriram, petitioners and co-accused were taking liquor, so he returned and narrated the incident to his uncle and telephoned Naresh. Thereafter, the complainant, his uncle Shriram, Dalip, Naresh and Harish went to the spot, where the petitioner and co-accused were taking liquor and asked them that they portray themselves from police and openly taking liquor. In the interregnum, after hearing the noise, uncle of the complainant, namely Sukhdev (the deceased), came on the spot, to whom it was informed that on 22.10.2020 Naresh was slapped without any reason. Therefore, the deceased started inquiring the petitioners and co-accused as to why Naresh was slapped, so an altercation ensued. Co-accused brought a knife from the vehicle and stabbed the deceased twice in his stomach. When the complainant and his uncle Shriram tried to rescue the deceased, co-accused stabbed Shriram in his stomach and caused knife injuries on the person of the complainant. Co-accused brought a knife from the vehicle and stabbed the deceased twice in his stomach. When the complainant and his uncle Shriram tried to rescue the deceased, co-accused stabbed Shriram in his stomach and caused knife injuries on the person of the complainant. Thereafter, the deceased and Shriram were immediately taken to nearby hospital, however, during the course of treatment the deceased succumbed to his injuries and injured Shriram was referred to IGMC, Shimla. Upon the statement, so made by the complainant, police machinery was set into motion. Police registered a case under the apt Sections of IPC and the investigation commenced. Police visited the spot of occurrence, collected scientific evidence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. The petitioners and co-accused were arrested and medically examined. Police recovered a blood stained knife and also made relevant recoveries from the spot of occurrence. During the course of investigation, co-accused and the petitioners divulged that knife was issued by CID, Shimla, as they were sent to the area for getting clue regarding narcotics. They also divulged that on 22.10.2020 they had an altercation with three boys, when they inquired about the narcotics. SFSL team also visited the spot of occurrence from where samples were lifted and the spot was photographed. Police seized the vehicle, which was allegedly used in commission of the crime, alongwith its documents and key. Medico Legal Certificates of the petitioners and that of the co-accused reveal that on the day of occurrence they consumed liquor. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were also actively involved in the alleged crime. In case the petitioners, at this stage, are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that they may flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution witnesses, so the bail applications may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and gone through the records, carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has further argued that the petitioners were not at all involved in the alleged offence. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and gone through the records, carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has further argued that the petitioners were not at all involved in the alleged offence. The petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are permanent residents of District Solan, H.P. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners and considering the story of the prosecution, which clearly demonstrates that it was the co-accused, who allegedly stabbed the deceased and caused injuries on the persons of the complainant and one Shriram. He has argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, the custody of the petitioners is not at all required, so the bail applications may be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed heinous crime and the petitioners were actively involved in the commission of the crime. He has further argued that in case the petitioners, at this stage, are enlarged on bail they may tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice, so the petitions may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than six months and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners, considering the fact that as per the prosecution story, it was the co-accused, who stabbed the deceased and caused injuries on the persons of the complainant and Shriram and the fact that the petitioners only had passive role in the commission of crime. He has argued that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the bail petitions may be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail. 7. He has argued that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the bail petitions may be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the gravity and heinousness of the alleged offence, prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the alleged office, the fact that the petitioners and the co-accused had an altercation and scuffle with the complainant and other boys, the fact that on the day of occurrence the petitioners and co-accused were taking liquor and when they were asked about their earlier conduct, quarrel took place, considering the fact that as per the medical evidence, the deceased died due to stab injuries, considering the recovery of blood stained knife from the spot of occurrence and also considering the facts that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, at this stage, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from the justice and considering all other vital aspects, which emerge, and without discussing the same elaborately at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitions, which sans merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for the adjudication of the instant petitions and shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.