Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 609 (HP)

Devender v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-04-03

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 77 of 2023, dated 11.7.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 , 302, 323, 504, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has collected insufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. The medical reports do not establish any involvement of the petitioner. The informant did not mention the petitioner’s name in his statement recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The eyewitnesses stated that they could identify the person who had committed the offence, but no test identification parade was conducted. The police recovered the clothes of the petitioner, but no blood was found on them. An angle iron rod was also stated to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner, but the blood was found insufficient for serological examination. The petitioner belongs to a poor family. He has been in judicial custody for one year and five months. The prosecution evidence is yet to start. The prosecution has cited 27 witnesses, and there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner 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 told the police that he and Lalit alias Suraj were consuming liquor and food on 11.7.2023 at 12.30 AM. Hasan Khan came to the room and told them that a boy working in the Pinki Dhaba was abusing him. Hasan Khan called that person. The informant and Lalit alias Suraj also talked to him. He abused them and called them near Kumarhatti Flyover. The informant, Hasan Khan and Lalit went to Kumarhatti flyover, where 7-8 persons were present who were armed with iron rods. They stopped the motorcycle and started beating the informant party. The informant party sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital. Hasan and the informant were sent to a higher institution for further treatment. The police arrested the petitioner and other persons. They stopped the motorcycle and started beating the informant party. The informant party sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital. Hasan and the informant were sent to a higher institution for further treatment. The police arrested the petitioner and other persons. They got recovered iron rods and sticks, which were used for the commission of offence. The police seized them. Lalit alias Suraj succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The petitioner got recovered an angle iron, which had an orange colour and blood stains. The orange colour was found on the motorcycle of the deceased Lalit alias Suraj. The sample of paint was obtained, and it was sent to FSL along with the angle iron. As per the report of analysis, the blood was found on angle iron, which was insufficient for serological examination. The orange colour on the angle iron and the sample was found to be similar. The petitioner had inflicted injury on the head of Lalit alias Suraj. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The police did not conduct any test identification parade to ascertain the identity of the petitioner. The blood was found insufficient for further serological examination and there is nothing on record to connect it with the deceased. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.7.2023 and the prosecution evidence has not commenced. Petitioner’s right to speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence. There is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. He got recovered an angle iron. The orange colour on the angle iron matched the orange colour found on the motorcycle of the deceased. The angle iron also had blood stains, which corroborates the prosecution’s version that the accused had used angle iron to inflict injuries on the head of deceased Lalit alias Suraj. The offence is heinous. He got recovered an angle iron. The orange colour on the angle iron matched the orange colour found on the motorcycle of the deceased. The angle iron also had blood stains, which corroborates the prosecution’s version that the accused had used angle iron to inflict injuries on the head of deceased Lalit alias Suraj. The offence is heinous. 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 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. 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 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. 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 got recovered an angle iron, which contained blood stains. The blood was insufficient for serological examination, but the report of the FSL shows that the blood was present on the angle iron rod. The report also shows that the orange colour found on the motorcycle of the deceased matched the orange colour on the angle iron rod got recovered by the petitioner. This report prima facie shows that angle iron was used for the commission of the crime. Lalit alias Suraj had died due to the injuries inflicted upon his head by the angle iron rod. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . The offence is heinous and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 10. It was submitted that there is delay in the progress of trial. This cannot be accepted. The matter is being listed for prosecution evidence. The statement of one witness was recorded on 5.10.2024 and one witness was given up on that day. This shows that the trial is continuing, hence, the plea that there is a delay in the progress of trial is not acceptable. 11. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. 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.