Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 309 (HP)

Shashi Pal v. State of H. P.

2023-05-26

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Both these petitions were heard and are being decided together as these arise out of the same “FIR” and involve common questions of facts and law. 2. A case under Sections 302, 341, 323, 147, 149, 504, 506 and 201 of the IPC has been registered at Police Station Kot-Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P vide FIR No. 105 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022. The foundation for registration of above FIR was a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., of one Shri Daya Ram (now deceased). It was alleged that on 21.11.2022 at about 9.30 P.M. complainant was present in his house and had received a phone call from Subhash Chand informing that Keshav Dutt (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) 831 of 2023) and Ram Kumar alias Manu were inflicting blows upon Naresh Kumar (son of complainant) with sticks. The complainant with his other son Dinesh Kumar proceeded towards the house of Subhash Chand and when they reached near cow shed of Joginder Pal, they were waylaid by Joginder Pal and his two sons Shashi Pal, Keshav Dutt (petitioners), nephew Ram Kumar alias Manu, wife Ramana Devi and his daughter-in-law. He further complained that Joginder Pal and his nephew Ram Kumar alias Manu inflicted blows on left leg of complainant with sticks. Petitioners, wife and daughter-in-law of Joginder Pal gave beatings to Dinesh Kumar. They were saved by intervention of Subhash Chand and his son Monu. In the result, complainant had received injuries on his left leg and his son Dinesh Kumar had received injuries on head. Both of them went to Civil Hospital Ghawandal for treatment and found Naresh Kumar, the other son of complainant already under treatment there. Statement of Daya Ram was recorded on 22nd November, 2022. 3. In the evening on 22.11.2022, the police received the information that Daya Ram had died at Regional Hospital Una. His postmortem was conducted. The investigation is stated to be almost complete. The opinion regarding the cause of death of Daya Ram has been kept pending till receipt of report from “RFSL” and Histopathology laboratory. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence with the police to suggest that Daya Ram had died on account of injuries allegedly inflicted upon him. He further contended that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence with the police to suggest that Daya Ram had died on account of injuries allegedly inflicted upon him. He further contended that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioners. Even as per the statement of Daya Ram recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., he had not named the petitioners to be the persons having inflicted any injury on him. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated with a purpose to settle the scores as the complainant side was having inimical relations towards them. As per petitioners, they have no criminal antecedents. They are permanent residents of Village and Post Office Saloa, Police Station Kot-Kehloor, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. and petitioners have undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against them. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer on the ground that both the petitioners are involved in a serious and heinous crime. The investigation is still going on and in case of release of petitioners on bail, there is every likelihood that they may tamper with the prosecution evidence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 7. The gravity and seriousness of accusations, undoubtedly, are relevant factors for consideration while deciding the petition for bail. However, only allegations of commission of heinous crime are not sufficient to deny the bail. The court has also to assess the nature of evidence and other material collected by the investigating agency in support of such accusations. 8. I have gone through the status report filed on behalf of the respondent and have also gone through the record of investigation. Late Shri Daya Ram had given his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to the police on 22.11.2022, whereas the alleged incident was of previous night. It means that late Shri Daya Ram was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. He did not allege any assault to have been inflicted upon him by the petitioners. As per his statement, petitioners had given beatings to Dinesh Kumar. Thus, the petitioners cannot be linked with the injuries allegedly suffered by Shri Daya Ram (now deceased). He did not allege any assault to have been inflicted upon him by the petitioners. As per his statement, petitioners had given beatings to Dinesh Kumar. Thus, the petitioners cannot be linked with the injuries allegedly suffered by Shri Daya Ram (now deceased). Even otherwise, it was categorically alleged by Shri Daya Ram that injuries were inflicted upon his left leg by Joginder Pal and Ram Kumar. 9. The cause of death of petitioner is still unknown despite lapse of more than five months. Though, the MLC of deceased Shri Daya Ram and subsequent postmortem report records an injury on the head, but there is no explanation for cause of such injury. Even the magnitude of such injury is still unknown. However, as suggested by post mortem report, the skull was found intact without any fracture. Only a minute subarachnoid hemorrhage was found present on the left parietal region. Till date even this injury has not been suggested or opined to be fatal. As noticed above, Shri Daya Ram had not stated anything about any injuries having been inflicted on his head. 10. The aforesaid observations have been made only to assess the seriousness and gravity of allegations against the petitioners and material collected by investigating agency during the investigation. On the basis of material on record, there are no allegations against the petitioners that they had acted in an inhuman and cruel manner. There are allegations and counter allegations of inimical relations between the parties, which always can be used as a double-edged weapon. 11. On the above analysis, I am of the considered view that material, to prima facie suggest existence of requisite intention or knowledge for commission of offence of murder, is prima facie lacking as far as the petitioners are concerned. 12. The petitioners have already suffered custody since 24.11.2022. No fruitful purpose shall be served by detaining the petitioners in custody for indefinite period. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule. 13. Petitioners are permanent residents of Village and Post Office Saloa, Police Station Kot-Kehloor, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. and there is no likelihood of their absconding and fleeing from the course of justice. No criminal antecedents have been attributed to the petitioners. 14. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule. 13. Petitioners are permanent residents of Village and Post Office Saloa, Police Station Kot-Kehloor, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. and there is no likelihood of their absconding and fleeing from the course of justice. No criminal antecedents have been attributed to the petitioners. 14. The apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General regarding possibility of petitioners tampering with the prosecution evidence, though uncorroborated, can be taken care of by imposing appropriate terms against the petitioners. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 105 of 2022, dated 22.11.2022 under Sections 302, 341, 323, 147, 149, 504, 506 and 201 of the IPC registered at Police Station Kot-Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P. subject to each of them furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Bilaspur. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions: - (i) Petitioners shall continue to join investigation as and when required; (ii) Petitioners shall 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; (iii) Petitioners shall not leave the country without the express permission of the Court; (iv) Petitioners shall not indulge in any other criminal activity; and (v) Any violation of the condition(s) of this bail order shall entail cancellation. 16. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only.