Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 315 (HP)

Harish Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-05-29

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is accused in case registered vide FIR No. 116/2022, dated 28.09.2022, registered under Section 302 IPC, at Police Station, Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti. 2. Petitioner is in custody since 28.9.2022. Investigation is complete and challan stands filed in the Court. The case has been registered on the statement of one Shri Meshu Mehta, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., who had stated that he was working as Manager in Hotel ‘Plum Dhara’ at Sissu. On 24th of September, 2022, four officials of ISRO had visited his hotel for stay. They were accompanied by two drivers, namely, Harish Singh and Raja Bhatt. Both the drivers were made to stay in Room No. 106 of hotel Plum Dhara. Since 24th of September, 2022, both the drivers were indulging in consuming liquor. They were arguing and fighting with each other. On 27th of September, 2022, at about 1:15 P.M., he alongwith his staff and one of the members of ISRO group were sitting besides the parking out side hotel. It was noticed that Raja Bhatt was lying in his vehicle No. UK-017-TB-3921 and he was intoxicated. Harish Singh (petitioner) was also intoxicated and was inflicting blows with fist on Raja Bhatt. Vaibhav Garg, the members of the ISRO, was asked to video record the incident, which was done. It was noticed thereafter that blood was oozing out just above the left eye of Raja Bhatt. He was immediately taken to Primary Health Center near to the hotel. Petitioner also accompanied the injured Raja Bhatt to the PHC. After sometime, they all came back after Raja Bhatt was given first aid. It was noticed by the complainant that there was a bandage on the head of Raja Bhatt. He was allowed to have rest in room No. 106. After about ½ hour, petitioner came in the parking and drove his vehicle towards Kullu. One of the staff members of the hotel followed the petitioner on motor cycle and he was brought back to the hotel. Key of the vehicle was taken from the petitioner and petitioner went to his room. Again after about one hour, petitioner came down and asked for the key of the vehicle. On refusal, petitioner started walking towards Sissu and after sometime, came back with a bottle of liquor in his hand. Key of the vehicle was taken from the petitioner and petitioner went to his room. Again after about one hour, petitioner came down and asked for the key of the vehicle. On refusal, petitioner started walking towards Sissu and after sometime, came back with a bottle of liquor in his hand. He went to his room and at about 6:15 P.M., petitioner came to the complainant and told him that Raja Bhatt was not able to breath. One Pharmacist, named Parvesh, was called on telephone. Raja Bhatt was again taken to Primary Health Center. In the meanwhile, the owner of the hotel informed Police Post, Koksar regarding the incident. Raja Bhatt was referred to Regional Hospital, Keylong. Later, the complainant was informed that the doctor at Regional Hospital, Keylong had declared Raja Bhatt as dead. 3. On investigation, the Investigating Agency is stated to have found sufficient material to submit report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. recommending trial of the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. 4. The initial/preliminary medical opinion on the cause of death of deceased is as under: “In our provisional opinion, the cause of death in this case is Asphyxia secondary to aspiration of gastric contents. However, the final opinion is reserved and will be issued after the receipt of reports from RFSL/SFSL.” 5. The postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the observations of Autopsy Surgeon were as under: “scalp-On reflection of scalp, subgaleal hematoma of size 3cmx2cm present over the left frontal region and of size 4cmx3cm present over the parietal region, along the midline and 8.4 cm from the external occipital region. Multiple petechial haemorrhages present over the scalp. No fracture of skull or available vertebrae present. Brain: congested and grossly oedematous. Subarachnoid hemorrhage present over an area of 2.5cmx1.6cm over the left frontal region. Subarchnoid hemorrhage present over an area of 5.5 cmx4cm over the parietal region, along the midline. No intraventricular bleed present.” 6. Multiple petechial haemorrhages present over the scalp. No fracture of skull or available vertebrae present. Brain: congested and grossly oedematous. Subarachnoid hemorrhage present over an area of 2.5cmx1.6cm over the left frontal region. Subarchnoid hemorrhage present over an area of 5.5 cmx4cm over the parietal region, along the midline. No intraventricular bleed present.” 6. The status report further reveals that the Investigating Agency had received medical opinion in following terms: “(1) At the time of death, the deceased had consumed alcohol but was not under its influence (2) the injuries sustained over the head of the deceased can lead to vomiting and asphyxia secondary to the aspiration of gastric contents (3) The sub-archanoid hemorrhage present over the brain of the deceased can lead to vomiting and asphyxia secondary to the aspiration of gastric contents.” 7. Learned counsel for the bail petitioner has contended that from the perusal of entire material collected by the Investigating Agency, no case under Section 302 IPC is made out against the petitioner. He further contended that even on assumption of the entire case of prosecution as proved, petitioner cannot be said to have committed an offence, falling within the mischief of murder. As per him, it was a pure accident and neither the requisite intent nor knowledge for commission of murder can be attributed to the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner has permanent abode and residence. He will make himself available for the purposes of trial and for such purpose, he is ready and willing to suffer any conditions, as may be deemed fit. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail. He has contended that the allegations against petitioner are of commission of offence of murder, which falls in category of heinous crime. In case petitioner is let off at this stage, he may abscond from the course of justice and may also try to influence the prosecution witnesses. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 10. The investigation is complete and the prosecution is placing reliance on the material collected by the Investigating Agency. On the strength of such material, it is alleged that there is prima-facie material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 11. No doubt, the accusation against the petitioner is of commission of a heinous offence. 10. The investigation is complete and the prosecution is placing reliance on the material collected by the Investigating Agency. On the strength of such material, it is alleged that there is prima-facie material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 11. No doubt, the accusation against the petitioner is of commission of a heinous offence. However, mere accusation cannot be taken to be the sole criteria to deny the right of liberty of the accused. Equally important is the nature of material/evidence that has been collected by the Investigating Agency to support the charge against the petitioner. The Court at the stage of adjudicating plea for bail, has to weigh the right of liberty of accused against the entire material including accusations and evidence on record. 12. Though this Court at this stage will not venture into minute scan of the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, yet it can be looked into only for the purposes of assessing the gravity of allegations as also the available evidence in support thereof. There is no material to suggest that there was enmity between the petitioner and the deceased. Both belong to the State of Uttrakhand and were driving the commercial vehicles i.e. Cabs. They had gone to Sissu with their clients. It is evident from the material available on record that on 27th of September, 2022, when the offices of the ISRO were to return back, the deceased, due to intoxication, was not not in a position to get up and drive. Petitioner was time and again insisting upon him to be ready to take the clients back. It was in this process that the petitioner is stated to have given fist blows to the deceased. The medical record does not suggest that the injury suffered by the deceased was so grievous that in ordinary course would have caused death. Even, there is no definitive opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased. It is presumed and hypothetical in nature. However, there is also no definitive material on record to suggest that whatever was done by the petitioner was a premeditated action. 13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served by incarcerating the petitioner for indefinite period, more particularly, for the reasons that he has already suffered custody since 28th September, 2022. 13. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served by incarcerating the petitioner for indefinite period, more particularly, for the reasons that he has already suffered custody since 28th September, 2022. There is nothing against him that in the event of being released on bail, he will not be available for trial or he will be in a position to affect the trial adversely. No criminal antecedents have been attributed to the petitioner. Apprehension raised regarding the possibility of petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses can be taken care of by putting the petitioner to the appropriate terms. 14. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case registered vide FIR No. 116/2022, dated 28.09.2022, under Section 302 IPC, at Police Station, Keylong, District Lahaul & Spiti, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to following conditions:- i) That the petitioner shall appear before learned trial Court on each and every date and shall not delay the trial. ii) That the petitioner 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 true facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) That breach of any of the bail condition by the petitioner shall entail cancellation of the bail. iv) That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. 15. 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. 16. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.