Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 392 (HP)

Husnain v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-18

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. 278 of 2021, dated 7.12.2021, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has cited 28 witnesses out of whom 07 witnesses have been examined. There is no possibility of an early conclusion of the trial. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Petitioner is 24 years of age. His family is dependent upon him. He shall 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 was married to Geeta Devi (since deceased). Geeta Devi had gone to Firozpur to earn her livelihood. The informant used to talk to her on her mobile phone. She told the informant that petitioner Husnain used to force her to become Muslim. She left Firozabad and started working at Baddi. She informed the informant that the petitioner had also visited Baddi. He was compelling her to adopt the Muslim religion. The informant called his wife but nobody picked up the phone. Somebody called the informant on 4.12.2021 and told him that he was sending a photograph and that the informant should identify the person in the picture. The informant identified the person in the photograph as his wife. The police registered the FIR. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted and as per the report of the Medical OfÏcer, the deceased died as a result of sharp force trauma to the neck and major vessels including the respiratory apparatus leading to hemorrhagic shock. Police seized various articles. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered the mobile phone. One SIM card issued in the name of the deceased was also found with the petitioner. The petitioner recovered a knife with which he had committed the murder. Police seized various articles. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered the mobile phone. One SIM card issued in the name of the deceased was also found with the petitioner. The petitioner recovered a knife with which he had committed the murder. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The statements of seven witnesses have been recorded and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 20.3.2025. Hence the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. The police had no call detail record and the customer application form (CAF) to connect the SIM to the deceased. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the petitioner is also suspicious. He further submitted that there is a delay in the progress of trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground as well. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The evidence is continuing and there is no delay in the progress of the trial. 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P ., ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . 8. This position was reiterated 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. 8. This position was reiterated 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 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 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 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) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. A perusal of the status report shows that the police found the SIM of the deceased in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner also got recovered a knife. It was sent to FSL and as per the report, blood was found on the knife. 11. A perusal of the status report shows that the police found the SIM of the deceased in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner also got recovered a knife. It was sent to FSL and as per the report, blood was found on the knife. These circumstances coupled with the complaint made by the deceased to the informant that the petitioner was compelling her to convert to Muslim religion prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner with the commission of crime. 12. It was submitted that the status report does not show that the customer application form was collected and there is nothing to show that the SIM card belonged to the deceased. This submission cannot be accepted. The status report does not discuss the evidence but the facts which are established during the investigation. Further, the status report specifically mentions that the deceased had purchased the SIM card which was found subsequently in the possession of the petitioner. 13. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the sentence which can be imposed after the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 14. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground as well. This submission is not acceptable. The copies of the order sheets show that the statements of seven witnesses have been recorded. Learned Trial Court had noticed in an order dated 3.9.2024 that the trial of an under-trial prisoner is to be conducted expeditiously and once the trial has commenced, it has to proceed daily. Learned Trial Court summoned the witnesses in equal proportion and recorded the statements of witnesses. This shows that the learned Trial Court is making all efforts to conduct the trial expeditiously. Learned Trial Court also noticed in the order sheet that there is a huge pendency of the cases. Keeping in view the pendency of the cases, the examination of seven witnesses, cannot amount to any delay in the conclusion of the trial. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court again in case he finds that the trial is not progressing and the delay is not attributable to him. 15. Keeping in view the pendency of the cases, the examination of seven witnesses, cannot amount to any delay in the conclusion of the trial. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court again in case he finds that the trial is not progressing and the delay is not attributable to him. 15. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 16. 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.