Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 466 (HP)

Ravinder Kumar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-24

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. 54 of 2022, dated 11.6.2022, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than two years and five months. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 16.4.2025 and 17.4.2025. The prosecution has examined three witnesses out of 63 witnesses cited by it. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. There is nothing on record to show the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner has deep roots in the society, and he is not likely to abscond. 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 police were informed that Baba Shiv Narayan Puri was not picking up his mobile. The police searched for him but could not trace him. Subsequently, an e-mail was received in which it was mentioned that the mobile phones of Baba were operating in Punjab. The police obtained the call detail record, checked the CCTV footage and found that the vehicle of Baba had moved towards Chandigarh. It was also found that money was being withdrawn at Chandigarh/Mohali from Baba’s account. The police obtained the CCTV footage of the ATMs from where the money was withdrawn. The mobile phones were put on the tracking, and it was found that a SIM issued in the name of petitioner Ravinder Kumar Singh was being used in the mobile phone of Baba. It also had an alternative number issued in the name of Pradeep Singh. The police checked the record of Raghukul Guest House, owned by Pradeep Singh, and found that petitioner Ravinder Kumar Singh had stayed in the guest house from 11.6.2022 till 13.6.2022 and from 14.6.2022 to 16.6.2022. The CCTV footage of the guest house was checked, and the person who was withdrawing the money from the ATM was found to be the same who was staying in the guest house. The police seized the record of the guest house. The CCTV footage of the guest house was checked, and the person who was withdrawing the money from the ATM was found to be the same who was staying in the guest house. The police seized the record of the guest house. The other mobile phone was tracked, and it was found to be using a SIM issued in the name of Dharminder. The location of the mobile phone was found near Kot, Baleyan, Theog, on 5.6.2022 when Baba was found missing. The police found that the account number linked to the mobile phone of Dharminder had a deposit of Rs.3.00 lacs between 15.6.2022 and 16.6.2022 and a withdrawal of Rs.1,70,000/- through cheque. The police arrested Dharminder, who admitted that he, petitioner Ravinder and Bhupinder came to Kotkhai and murdered Baba. They transported the dead body in a vehicle of Baba and threw it at Giripul. The dead body was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement, which was identified by the younger brother of Baba. Police checked the CCTV footage and found that an Alto car was coming from Chandigarh to Shimla in which three persons were travelling. Police seized the CCTV footage. It was also found that Dharminder, petitioner-Ravinder and Bhpinder had stayed in Hotel HC Punjab Inn from 6.6.2022. The record was seized. It was found that Bhupinder was operating the mobile phone issued in the name of Kalawati. The location of the mobile phone was found to be in Shimla. Subsequently, the mobile phone was switched off on 8.6.2022. Earlier, the SIM issued in the name of Bhupinder was used in the same mobile phone. The police also arrested petitioner Ravinder and recorded the statement of Suman Bisht, who stated that she had handed over her SIM to petitioner Ravinder. Bhupinder was also arrested. The statement of Ravinder was recorded under Section 27, and the vehicle of Baba was recovered from Balongi (Mohali). Petitioner Ravinder and Bhupinder identified the place where they had murdered the Baba. Rs.2.00 lacs were recovered at the instance of Ravinder from Vijay Sethi. Police found after the investigation that Dharminder, Bhupinder and Ravinder had conspired to kill Baba. Baba had registered an FIR against Ravinder, and Ravinder was annoyed due to this fact. They murdered Baba, brought his dead body into a jungle and carried the vehicle of Baba to Chandigarh (Mohali). They stayed in Hotel HC Punjab Inn. Police found after the investigation that Dharminder, Bhupinder and Ravinder had conspired to kill Baba. Baba had registered an FIR against Ravinder, and Ravinder was annoyed due to this fact. They murdered Baba, brought his dead body into a jungle and carried the vehicle of Baba to Chandigarh (Mohali). They stayed in Hotel HC Punjab Inn. Ravinder withdrew the money from the ATM. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 16.4.2025. 3. I have heard Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Ms Kanta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. There is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. The petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He had murdered the deceased in connivance with his co-accused simply because the deceased had got an FIR registered against him in Police Station, Kotkhai. The order sheet shows that the adjournments were sought by the petitioner, and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. 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 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 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 was found in possession of an ATM Card of the deceased. He had withdrawn money from the account of the deceased by using the ATM. He was seen in the CCTV footage taken from various ATMs. His call detail record shows his presence near the place of the incident. He got the various recoveries effected. These circumstances prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. 10. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission is not acceptable. His call detail record shows his presence near the place of the incident. He got the various recoveries effected. These circumstances prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. 10. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission is not acceptable. The challan was received in the Court of learned Sessions Judge on 21.10.2022, and thereafter, repeated adjournments were sought for consideration on charge till 5.1.2024. The order sheet dated 22.4.2024 reads that one witness was present, but his cross- examination was deferred at the instance of the learned defence counsel for the present petitioner. These order sheets clearly show that the delay is being caused by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the delay caused by him in the progress of trial and the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground of delay. 11. The petitioner had committed the murder of a baba simply because the FIR was lodged by him against the petitioner. The petitioner had taken the ATM card of the Baba and withdrawn various amounts from the account of Baba. This shows that, prima facie, the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence, which is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the punishment that can be imposed, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. 12. In view of the above, 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.