Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 264 (HP)

Kunwar Singh @ Ram Singh v. State of H. P.

2024-04-22

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 57 of 2019 dated 26.4.2019, registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioner is in custody since 6.5.2019. 3. On 26.4.2019, police recovered a dead body from place called Kamli at Kaushalya Khud within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., on the information provided by one Sh. Lok Bahadur. The case was registered vide FIR No. 57 of 2019 at Police Station, Parwanoo. On investigation, police found complicity of petitioner along with two others namely Amar Pal @ Bhanwar Pal and Naniya @ Raju for commission of offence. Police arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner and his other two co-accused had murdered Sh. Sheesh Pal S/o Sh. Shankar Pal. The dead body recovered by the police on 26.4.2019 was also stated to be that of Sheesh Pal S/o Shankar Pal. 4. Police has placed reliance on scientific evidence to connect the petitioner and his co-accused with the offence. The petitioner and his co-accused are facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for the last almost five years and the trial has not concluded. Out of total 28 witnesses, only 5 have been examined till date. As per the petitioner, his right to speedy trial has seriously been prejudiced and in these circumstances, he is entitled to bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is accused of a very heinous crime. In case released on bail, petitioner may flee from the course of justice. It has also been contended that the petitioner is not a local resident of State of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there is every possibility that petitioner may abscond in order to avoid the punishment for the offence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has cited total 28 witnesses in support of its case and only 5 have been examined till date. In these circumstances, the right of the petitioner to have speedy trial has definitely been prejudiced. 9. 8. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has cited total 28 witnesses in support of its case and only 5 have been examined till date. In these circumstances, the right of the petitioner to have speedy trial has definitely been prejudiced. 9. The right to speedy trial is one of the various manifestations of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and has repeatedly been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be a valuable right available to a person or accused of an offence. In Dr. Vinod Bhandari vs. State of M.P. 2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 294 (S.C.), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Reference may be made to decisions of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005)2 SCC 42 , State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 , State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012)1 SCC 40 .” 10. In Zahur Haider Zaidi vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019)20 SCC 404 , a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail to an accused of offence under Section 302 of the IPC in following terms :- “1. Leave granted. We would presently consider whether the accused- appellant Zahur Haider Zaidi is entitled to be released on bail. The issue of transfer of case would be considered on a subsequent date after hearing all the accused. 2. Our attention has been drawn to the allegations against the accused-appellant and that he is in custody for the last 19 months. Though the accused-appellant is facing charge under Section 302, we are told that the trial has not made substantial progress beyond the framing of the charge. Completion of trial will take some time. 3. 2. Our attention has been drawn to the allegations against the accused-appellant and that he is in custody for the last 19 months. Though the accused-appellant is facing charge under Section 302, we are told that the trial has not made substantial progress beyond the framing of the charge. Completion of trial will take some time. 3. The only apprehension expressed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that the appellant being a highly placed police officer may intimidate and win over witnesses and influence them. 4. We are of the view that the bail ought not to be denied on the aforesaid ground and in the event of any such conduct, the prosecution can always approach the competent court for cancellation of bail. 5. Taking into account the allegations, the period of custody suffered and likely time that may be taken for completion of trial, we are of the view that the accused appellant should be released on bail in connection with FIR No. RC SI 2017 S0009 CBI/SC-I/New Delhi, on satisfaction of the appropriate condition(s) as may be imposed by the learned trial court. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is disposed of to the aforesaid extent.” 11. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 152 of 2020, Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP and Anr. (along with connected matter) and Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2021, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized the value of speedy trial for the accused and in cases of delay in completion of trials, liberty of bail has been granted. 12. In Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2023 titled as Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 28.03.2023, has held as under: - “21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were under-trials. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were under-trials. 22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State as “a radical transformation” whereby the prisoner: “loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes.” 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal”22 (also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ 20 National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics in India https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/ PSI- 2021/Executive_ncrb_Summary-2021.pdf 21 1993 Cri LJ 3242 22 Working Papers - Group on Prisons & Borstals - 1966 U.K. published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.” 13. In the facts of instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has been accessory in delaying the trial of the case. Petitioner is of young age. He is stated to be 38 years old. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents or past criminal history. 14. It is reflected from the records that the trial of the case is proceeding at snail’s pace. Despite the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 6.5.2019 only 5 out of 28 witnesses have been examined till date. He is stated to be 38 years old. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents or past criminal history. 14. It is reflected from the records that the trial of the case is proceeding at snail’s pace. Despite the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 6.5.2019 only 5 out of 28 witnesses have been examined till date. In these circumstances, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in reasonable period. 15. Petitioner has already suffered incarceration for almost five years. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be punitive or preventive. 16. In the given circumstances of the case, the further pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner will not be justified. The only concern of the court is with respect to availability of the petitioner for the trial and its fair conclusion and for such purposes, petitioner is being put to stringent conditions as detailed hereafter. 17. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case registered vide FIR No.57 of 2019 dated 26.4.2019 at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount, both of whom should be bonafide residents of State of Himachal Pradesh and having sufficient immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the State, to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions: - i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion. ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand. iii) Petitioner shall be liable for immediate arrest in the instant case in the event of petitioner violating the conditions of this bail. iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial. 18. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.