Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 63 (HP)

Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-06

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of the above titled bail applications, filed by the applicants, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) for issuance of direction to the I.O. of Police Station, Majra, District Sirmour, H.P., for releasing them on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 204 of 2024, dated 24.12.2024, registered under Sections 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’). 2. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in the above noted case, as such, they have approached this Court. According to the applicants, they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated in this case, by the Police, and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence. 3. As per the applicants, in case, protection is not granted to them, then, they will be arrested in the above noted false case. 4. It is the further case of the applicants that they have no role to play in the alleged suicide, committed by Inju Devi. 5. The applicants have given certain undertakings, which, they are ready to abide by, in case, direction is issued to the I.O. to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest. 6. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, Advocates, appearing for the respective applicants, have prayed that the present applications be allowed. 7. When, put to notice, the Police filed status report disclosing therein that on 24.12.2024, at about 9:00 a.m., an information was received in the Police control room, Nahan from one Pawan Kumar that his sister Anju, R/o Village Toka has committed suicide, upon which, ASI Anil Kumar, alongwith other police officials reached at the spot, where they had found dead body of a lady, which was brought down by her family members, after cutting the rope. On the spot, Krish Kumar has made a statement to the Police that he is resident of the address mentioned in the complaint. According to him, he has passed matriculation examination. His younger sister is studying in 10 th standard and his father had expired 9 years ago. On 23.12.2024, he, his mother and younger sister had taken food and thereafter, they had gone to sleep. According to him, he has passed matriculation examination. His younger sister is studying in 10 th standard and his father had expired 9 years ago. On 23.12.2024, he, his mother and younger sister had taken food and thereafter, they had gone to sleep. 7.1 On 24.12.2024, when the complainant woke up, then his mother was not found on the bed. Thereafter, the complainant, alongwith his sister looked for her in the kitchen, but she was not there also. Thereafter, he went to cowshed, where complainant found his mother hanging from the rope, upon which, he called his paternal aunt (tai). Thereafter, with the help of a darat (big sickle) the said rope was cut and dead body of Inju Devi was brought down. Thereafter, his family members also came there and his paternal uncle Ramesh Chand checked the pulse of Inju Devi and disclosed that she has died. 7.2 The complainant has disclosed that two months ago, they had given a contract for the construction of their new room. The contract was given to contractor Raj Kumar, R/o Kiratpur (applicant in Cr.MP(M) No. 3000 of 2024), who has laid slab, in the month of November. Labourers were also brought by the aforesaid contractor for removing the shuttering, on21.12.2024. 7.3 As per the complainant, on the next day, i.e. on 22.12.2024, one person came to his house. At that time, the complainant, his mother, his younger sister, his paternal uncle and his cousin were present there.Both of them told him and his mother that the material of shuttering has been lost and the same is found in their premises. The aforesaid persons told them that they will get the police case registered against them and will also apprise the media, about this incident, upon which, mother of the complainant requested them not to do so, but they threatened her. 7.4 Mother of the complainant, as well as, his uncle disclosed Safi Mohd. that he is not known to them, as the contract was given to the contractor. As per the complainant, Safi Mohammad also clicked the photographs of the complainant and also shoot the video. After threatening them, they had left the place. 7.5 As per the complainant, due to this fact, mother of the complainant remained under stress, and taken the extreme step of committing suicide. As per the complainant, Safi Mohammad also clicked the photographs of the complainant and also shoot the video. After threatening them, they had left the place. 7.5 As per the complainant, due to this fact, mother of the complainant remained under stress, and taken the extreme step of committing suicide. As such, he has prayed that action may be taken against them, upon which, the Police registered the aforesaid FIR. 8. After perusing the said status report, interim protection was granted to applicant Safi Mohammad, on 27.12.2024 and to applicant Raj Kumar on 31.12.2024, with a direction to join the investigation, as and when, directed by the Court to do so. 9. In the status report, which has been filed today, it has been mentioned that dead body of Inju Devi was sent to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, for post- mortem examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The rope used for committing suicide was also taken into possession. The Medical Officer has given the cause of death ‘asphyxia’ by hanging. The applicants have joined the investigation. 10. In the status report, it has been mentioned that during investigation, it has been found that applicant Safi Mohammad had rented the shuttering material to applicant Raj Kumar. 11. Heard. 12. No doubt, mother of the complainant had lost her valuable life, but, on the basis of above facts, bail application cannot be rejected, as, role allegedly played in the alleged crime, will be proved during trial. 13. Even, as per the case set up by the complainant, the applicants had allegedly gone to Inju Devi on 22.12.2024, and she was found hanging, on24.12.2024. 14. The applicants are residents of Paonta Sahib. As such, it cannot be apprehended that in case, protection granted to them, is made absolute, they will not be available for trial. 15. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the Police has not been able to make out a case for custodial interrogation of the applicants, as such, the interim orders dated 27.12.2024 in Cr.MP(M) No. 2972 of 2024 and 31.12.2024, in Cr. MP(M) No.3000 of 2024, are liable to be made absolute. 16. Consequently, interim order dated 27.12.2024, passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 2972 of 2024 and order 31.12.2024, passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 3000 of 2024, are made absolute. MP(M) No.3000 of 2024, are liable to be made absolute. 16. Consequently, interim order dated 27.12.2024, passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 2972 of 2024 and order 31.12.2024, passed in Cr. MP(M) No. 3000 of 2024, are made absolute. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 204 of 2024, dated24.12.2024, under Sections 331(4) and 305 and Section 108 of B.N.S., registered with Police Station, Majra, District Sirmour, H.P., on their furnishing personal bail bond, in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions: a) That the applicants will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicants will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicants will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; d) That the applicants shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 17. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail applications. 18. The applicants are directed to move regular bail applications, when chargesheet will be filed in the competent Court of law. 19. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate applications, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicants.