Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 496 (HP)

Rajesh Mehto v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-25

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 F.I.R. No. 224 of 2023, dated 22.08.2023, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is in custody for more than one year and five months and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is ready and willing to 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 received information regarding the death of Sakinder. The police reached the spot and found the dead body. Injuries were found on the chest and left thigh. It was found that the deceased had consumed alcohol throughout the day on 15.08.2023. He subsequently went to the room of the present petitioner. Another person was present in the room. All of them consumed liquor and chicken. The petitioner and Sakinder quarrelled. Sakinder called Daleep and Roshan to the petitioner’s room. All of them gave beatings to the petitioner. Rajesh Kumar inflicted injuries on the person of Sakinder and Daleep. Sakinder went to the room of Guddu, where he showed his injuries. Sakinder was taken to a medical store, and the petitioner was taken to ESI Hospital. Subsequently, Sakinder succumbed to his injuries. As per the report of the Medical Officer, Sakinder died as a result of multiple antemortem injuries. The police seized various articles. Mithlesh Kumar made an application before the police. The police registered the FIR based on the application. The petitioner got recovered the weapon of offence. The challan has been filed before the Court. Four witnesses have been examined, and 26 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is now listed on 26/27.03.2025 for recording the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. 3. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the report of RFSL, no blood was found on the weapon of offence stated to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Immediate medical aid was not provided to Sakinder, and his life could have been saved by the medical aid. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime, which is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the severity of the punishment and the gravity of the offence, the petitioner should not be released on 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The status report shows that the deceased was heavily intoxicated. He consumed liquor throughout the day and thereafter visited the petitioner’s house. The petitioner and the deceased quarrelled. Sakinder called Daleep and Roshan. They gave beatings to the petitioner, who sustained injuries on his leg. The petitioner inflicted two injuries on the person of Sikander and one injury on the person of Daleep. The petitioner was taken to ESI Hospital. The deceased was taken to the medical store and not to the hospital. These facts show that the incident had taken place all of a sudden when the deceased and other persons gave beatings to the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries and thereafter inflicted injuries on the person of the victim. The cause of death was also haemorrhagic shock. These circumstances prima facie do not establish a commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. At best, the offence can be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 12. The petitioner sustained injuries and thereafter inflicted injuries on the person of the victim. The cause of death was also haemorrhagic shock. These circumstances prima facie do not establish a commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. At best, the offence can be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 12. The petitioner had inflicted the injuries when he was attacked, and the status report specifically mentioned that the petitioner had caused the injuries to save himself. These averments show that the petitioner is prima facie, not a desperate character who can indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. As per the status report, he had prima facie acted to save himself when he was attacked by three persons. Hence, releasing the petitioner on bail will not affect the public at large. 13. The status report further shows that the prosecution has cited 26 witnesses, out of whom only four witnesses have been examined. The petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2023. More than one year and five months have elapsed since the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be detained in custody indefinitely, awaiting the conclusion of his trial. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration as well. 14. The status report does not show that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The petitioner was stated to be employed in a factory at Baddi, therefore, he 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 bail to the petitioner. 16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ?1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following 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 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 the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) 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. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 18. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 19. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order will be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 20. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.