Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1040 (HP)

Neha Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-16

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 11 of 2025, dated 23.01.2025, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1), 117(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution case, the co-accused Som Chand had given beatings to Bhura Ram and the informant Kalawati. Bhura Ram developed pain in his stomach. He was taken to the Medical College, Nahan and PGI Chandigarh. He died on 15.2.2025 in his home. The petitioner is a woman. She has two children aged 4 and 6 years. Her parents-in-law are aged 72 and 75 years, and are unable to take care of the minors. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family. She has roots in the society. She is 28 years old. She would abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police stating that he had gone to his field on 22.1.2025 at about 5.30 PM. Som Chand started abusing him and his wife. The informant inquired as to why the accused, Som Chand, was abusing him. Neha (present petitioner) and Som Chand gave beatings to the informant. The informant sustained injuries. He was taken to the Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Kalawati made a statement that she had gone to her village, where Som Chand and his wife, Neha, arrived and accused him of damaging the ‘dhol’. Bhura Ram came to the field at 5.30 PM. Som Chand and Neha repeated their allegations regarding damage to the Dhol. Som Chand and Neha gave beatings to Bhura Ram. Neha pushed Bhura Ram to the ground, and Som Chand inflicted injuries upon him. Bhura Ram was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred to Nahan and ultimately to PGI, Chandigarh. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was the presence of a draining pipe for the abdominal inflammation in the pancreas. The death was a sequel to blunt trauma to the pancreas, leading to pancreatitis. Bhura Ram was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred to Nahan and ultimately to PGI, Chandigarh. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was the presence of a draining pipe for the abdominal inflammation in the pancreas. The death was a sequel to blunt trauma to the pancreas, leading to pancreatitis. As per the final opinion, no marks of injury were found at the time of examination of the body, and the weapon of injury could not be commented upon. 3. I have heard Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. As per the status report, the beatings were given by Som Chand. The death was caused after a considerable delay and cannot be attributed to the injuries. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner had pushed the deceased to the ground while her husband gave beatings to him. This shows that both the accused were acting in concert and the accused/petitioner is liable under Section 3(5) of BNS. Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice”, has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the petitioner and her husband had given beatings to the deceased, who died subsequently due to the blunt trauma to the pancreas. Hence, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. The said offence is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the punishment prescribed, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 10. Hence, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. The said offence is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the punishment prescribed, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 10. It was submitted that the petitioner had not inflicted the actual injury on the stomach, and she could not be held liable for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 103(2) of BNS. This submission is not acceptable. The petitioner was acting in concert with her husband while beating the deceased. Therefore, she shared the common intention and would be liable because of Section 3 (5) of the BNS. Hence, the mere fact that the petitioner had not caused fatal injuries will not help her. 11. It was submitted that there is a delay in the injury and deaths. The deceased died after he was discharged from the hospital. Mere delay between the date of admission and the death will not show that the petitioner is not connected to the commission of a crime when the Medical Officer has categorically stated that the death could have been caused due to blunt trauma to the pancreas. 12. The trial has not commenced and it will not be proper to release the petitioner on bail. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 13. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.