Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 180 (HP)

Vinay Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-30

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. 56 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024, registered at Police Station, West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120-B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(V) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC&ST Act). The FIR was lodged on distorted facts and no such incident occurred. The police arrested seven persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shimla and he is in judicial custody in District Jail, Shimla (Kaithu). The police filed a charge sheet before the competent Court. The names of certain other persons were included after the investigation. The newly added persons applied for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The role attributed to the petitioner is similar to the role attributed to the persons enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Eye witnesses had not named the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as an outsourced employee in the department of I&PH and he lost his job after his arrest. His parents are suffering from various ailments and there is no person to look after them. The petitioner would abide by all 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 on1.4.2024 stating that her son Tikkam Chand alias Nittu (since deceased) was working as a labourer in the house of Sewa Nand in Village Khalyar. Prabha Devi, wife of Sewa Nand, called the informant on 22.3.2024 and told her that Tikkam Chand had fallen. Sewa Nand also called her and told her that Tikkam Chand had died due to a fall. The informant was coming to her home on a bus. She asked Sewa Nand that she would call after getting off the bus. However, she could not call him back as she was unable to locate the mobile number of Sewa Nand. She told her other son Med Ram about the call. The informant was coming to her home on a bus. She asked Sewa Nand that she would call after getting off the bus. However, she could not call him back as she was unable to locate the mobile number of Sewa Nand. She told her other son Med Ram about the call. The police also called her and inquired whether she had authorized any person to cremate the dead body to which she replied in negative. Med Ram and informant went to the village and found that the dead body was cremated by the villagers. His ash was handed over to him (Med Ram) with Rs.5,000/-. The informant subsequently discovered that Tikkam Chand had committed a theft in a temple and the villagers had beaten him to death. The police registered the FIR. It was found that a call was received in Police Post Jutogh on 21.3.2024 that police should contact Rajiv Sharma. The police called Rajiv Sharma, who said that one person had lit a fire near the temple. He was a thief and heavily intoxicated. He was being taken to the police post. The police waited for the person but nobody came to the police post. The police again contacted Rajiv Sharma in the morning and he said that the person was sent to his home. Tikkam Chand was found dead at a distance of 60-70 mtrs. from the temple. His dead body was seen by Tara Chand. Tara Chand informed other villagers, who were present near Sheetla Mata Temple about the death of Tikkam Chand. The villagers gathered in the house of Jagdish Chand. He called Pradhan Anjana Thakur, Up-Pradhan Rajinder and other members of the Panchayat. The villagers informed the Member of the Panchayat about the arson and theft committed by Tikkam Chand. They also told that Tikkam Chand was sent to his home. He was heavily intoxicated and he fell in a state of intoxication. Forensic experts inspected the spot and preserved the samples. The police went to the spot and seized the remains of the dead body. Rahul made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., stating that Umesh Kumar had dragged him (Rahul) out of his home and taken him to Sheetla Mata Temple. Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajiv Sharma gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The police went to the spot and seized the remains of the dead body. Rahul made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., stating that Umesh Kumar had dragged him (Rahul) out of his home and taken him to Sheetla Mata Temple. Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajiv Sharma gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The call details were also checked and the persons were found in touch with each other during the night and in the morning. Rajiv Sharma, petitioner Vinay Sharma, Ashish and Hemant saw that Sheetla Mata Temple was put on fire on 21.9.2024 at 10.30 PM. They went to the temple and found Tikkam Chand putting the temple on fire. Rajiv Sharma informed the police about this fact. Rajiv Sharma told Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Ram Lal, Rajesh, Jagdish Harish etc. about the incident. They reached the temple and gave beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tikkam revealed that Rahul was also involved in the theft. He was brought from his home by Ram Lal, Umesh, Bhanu, Nikhilesh, Nikhil, Nitin, Lakshay and Jagdish Chand. They gave beatings to Rahul. Rahul also saw Tikkam Chand lying on the floor. His head and face were bleeding. Rajiv, Hemant, Ashish, petitioner Vinay, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Harish and Sushil were present and gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The villagers also took their photographs and prepared the video. Subsequently, Tikkam Chand died and his dead body was burnt. The police arrested petitioner Vinay, Ashish, Shankar Lal, Geeta Ram, Rajiv Sharma and Tara Chand. As per the opinion of the Medical OfÏcer, Tikkam Chand could have died due to beating with a stick recovered by the police. It was found that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Castes; hence Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act, was added. As per the investigation conducted by the police, the petitioner Vinay Sharma, Hemant, Rajiv and Ashish reached the complex of Sheetla Mata Temple on 21.3.2024 after noticing the fire. They caught hold of Tikam Chand. Rajiv Sharma informed the police about the apprehension of the theft. Accused Tara Chand, Shankar Lal and Geeta Ram reached thereafter. All seven persons gave beatings to Tikam Chand. Rajesh Kumar, Susheel Kumar and Harish Kumar noticed bleeding injuries suffered by Tikam Chand. Rahul Kumar saw Tikam Chand lying near the Hawan Kund. He noticed the petitioner and other accused persons. Accused Tara Chand, Shankar Lal and Geeta Ram reached thereafter. All seven persons gave beatings to Tikam Chand. Rajesh Kumar, Susheel Kumar and Harish Kumar noticed bleeding injuries suffered by Tikam Chand. Rahul Kumar saw Tikam Chand lying near the Hawan Kund. He noticed the petitioner and other accused persons. Tara Chand, Rajiv and other persons gave beatings to Rahul. The report from FSL has been received. There is sufÏcient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. He had given beatings to Tikam Chand which led to his death. He had cremated the dead body and destroyed the evidence. The petitioner Vinay Sharma had taken the photographs of Tikam Chand and Rahul which were found in his mobile phone. The petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. He can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail.Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate, vice Mr Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as per the statements recorded by the prosecution, the petitioner was not found to have inflicted any injuries to the deceased. His mere presence at the spot along with other villagers is not sufÏcient to connect him with the commission of the murder. Some of the co-accused have been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the principle of parity will apply to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of heinous offence. He can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, 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 under: - “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 under: - “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 ob served 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, over- awe 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 em- powered 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 and 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 and 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 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 bail application and ob-served: “ 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, with-out 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 prosecution is relying upon the statements of Rahul Kumar recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and Jagdish Sharma recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Rahul Kumar stated in his statement on oath under section 164 of CrPC that six villagers came to his house. Umesh beat him with a stick. They took him to Sheetla Mata, Temple Complex where Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajeev gave him beatings. Tikkam Chand was lying near Hawan Kund. He had sustained bleeding injuries. The villagers gave him and other persons beatings. The dead body of Tikkam Chand was cremated. Umesh beat him with a stick. They took him to Sheetla Mata, Temple Complex where Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajeev gave him beatings. Tikkam Chand was lying near Hawan Kund. He had sustained bleeding injuries. The villagers gave him and other persons beatings. The dead body of Tikkam Chand was cremated. Tara Chand, Geeta Ram and Shankar Lal carried the dead body to the crematorium. Rajesh, Shankar Lal, Umesh, Geeta Ram, Ashish, Susheel, Happy, Om Parkash, Tara Chand, Rajeev and other persons were present in the crematorium. 10. Rahul Kumar stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Jagdish, Lakshay, Nitin, Ram Lal, Nikhil and Bhanu gave him beatings. Umesh dragged him to Sheetla Mata Temple where Rajeev, petitioner Vinay, Hemant, Ashish, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Rajesh, Harish and Susheel were present. Rajeev, Tara Chand and other persons gave beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal and Umesh carried the dead body to the crematorium. Rajeev, petitioner Vinay, Ashish, Hemant, Rajesh, Ram Lal, Harish, Susheel, Ram Chand, Bhanu, Om Prakash, Happy and Jagdish were present in the crematorium. 11. Jagdish stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Umesh gave beatings to Sewa Nand and dragged Rahul. Rahul was taken to Sheetla Mata temple where Rajeev, petitioner Vinay, Hemant, Ashish, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram Shankar, Rajesh, Harish and Susheel were present. Umesh, Tara Chand, Asheesh and other persons gave him beatings. Umesh gave beatings with a stick. Rajeev Sharma, petitioner Vinay, Ashish, Hemant, Rajesh, Ram Lal, Harish, Susheel, Ram Chand, Bhanu and Om Parkash were present in the crematorium. The villagers cremated the dead body. 12. It is apparent from the statements that no specific role is ascribed to the present petitioner. He was stated to be present along with the co-accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Susheel, Harish and Rajesh who were stated to be initially present in the temple complex as well as in the crematorium with the present petitioner. There is a force in the submission of Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished from these persons and once they were held entitled to bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail cannot be denied to the present petitioner. 13. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.04.2024 for about one year. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished from these persons and once they were held entitled to bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail cannot be denied to the present petitioner. 13. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.04.2024 for about one year. The status report shows that the matter is listed for the service on 01.07.2025, which means that the trial of the petitioner is not likely to commence soon. The petitioner cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely, waiting for the commencement and conclusion of the trial. 14. The petitioner stated that he is a permanent resident of District Shimla. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report filed by the State. It means that the petitioner has roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner will intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. This apprehension can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufficient to deny the bail to the petitioner. The prosecution has a right to approach the Court in case of misuse of the liberty by the petitioner. 16. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: - (I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever; (II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments; (III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court; (IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail. 18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail, Shimla (Kaithu) and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 19. 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.