Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 677 (HP)

Dinesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2025-04-08

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Rakesh Kainthla, J.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 , 392, 342, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short “ IPC ” ) registered vide FIR No. 18/2022, dated 02.02.2022, at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The police have completed the investigations and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The custody of the petitioner is not required. There is no eye witness of the incident and the prosecution’s case rests entirely on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. The forensic report does not connect the petitioner to the incident. The DNA sample collected during the investigation does not match the petitioner's DNA. There is substantial doubt regarding the petitioner’s involvement in the incident. The police recovered a tie lock, a tape roll, and scissors on February 11, 2022, 11 days after the incident. This discovery is highly improbable, as it is unlikely that the petitioner would have kept incriminating articles with him. The police asserted that they recovered the Aadhaar card of the petitioner and the deceased-Geeta from the residence of Pavender Singh. They (police) further claimed that the petitioner had sold a gold ring belonging to the deceased to Jeweller Chandan Verma and provided him with a photocopy of the petitioner’s Aadhaar card. However, this assertion is contradicted by the prosecution case, which states that the Aadhaar card was found in the room of Pavender Singh. There is no evidence to suggest that the jeweller transferred the amount to the petitioner’s account. The petitioner is a Driver by profession. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. He 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 police received information regarding the recovery of two bundles containing the dead bodies of two women. The police registered the First Information Report (FIR) and conducted an investigation. The women were subsequently identified as Geeta and Nisha, residents of Zirakpur. The police obtained the call detail records and discovered that Bhupender was in contact with Geeta. The police interrogated Bhupender Singh, who revealed that his friend Akash Deep had taken them in his vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01B-6562 to Kharar. The women were subsequently identified as Geeta and Nisha, residents of Zirakpur. The police obtained the call detail records and discovered that Bhupender was in contact with Geeta. The police interrogated Bhupender Singh, who revealed that his friend Akash Deep had taken them in his vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01B-6562 to Kharar. The police conducted an interrogation with Akash Deep, who identified the women as the passengers who were taken by him in his vehicle. Subsequently, the police examined the CCTV footage and discovered that a vehicle with the registration number HR-03N-3403 was moving suspiciously on the intervening night of January 30-31, 2022. The police conducted an investigation with the Tata Agency, Phase-II, Industrial Area, which revealed that the vehicle was purchased by Manpreet Singh. Manpreet Singh subsequently informed the police that he had sold the vehicle to Ajay Gautam. Ajay Gautam further disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Sukhbir. Sukhbir, in turn, revealed that he had sold the vehicle to Jitender Pal some months prior to the incident. Consequently, the police apprehended Jitender Pal and conducted a search of his vehicle. During the search, the police recovered 13 tie locks, tape rolls, and scissors from the vehicle’s dicky, which were similar to the articles utilized for securing the deceased bodies. Additionally, the police searched the residence of Parvinder Singh and discovered the Aadhaar cards of the petitioner and Geeta. The police also retrieved various articles from the room. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested, and he confessed to selling the ring of the deceased to Chandan Verma Jeweller for Rs. 6,800. Rs. 4,800 was subsequently transferred to the petitioner’s account, while Rs.2,000 was paid in cash. A call detail record of the petitioner and Jitender Pal revealed that they were in communication with one another on the night of the incident. The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. Statements of five witnesses have been recorded, and one witness has been given up. The matter is now listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on May 15, 2025, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State. 4. Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State. 4. Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The evidence collected by the prosecution is inherently improbable and does not establish a connection between the petitioner and the commission of a crime. The petitioner has been in custody since February 11, 2022. The prosecution has only examined five witnesses. The delay in the conclusion of the trial warrants the petitioner’s release on bail due to the violation of his right to a speedy trial. Therefore, she prayed that the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner’s Aadhaar card was found in the room of Parvinder. He had sold the ring of the deceased to a jeweller and was in touch with the co-accused and the deceased. These circumstances sufficiently establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of a crime. The petitioner has committed a heinous crime punishable by capital punishment. Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioner should not be released on bail. 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering 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 prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner was found in contact with the deceased, and the mobile phone of deceased-Nisha was discovered in his possession. He had sold the ring of deceased-Geeta to Chandan Jeweller and his Aadhar card was found in the room from which the Aadhar card of deceased-Geeta was found. The report of the forensic science laboratory indicates that the DNA of deceased Nisha was found on the bedsheet, while the DNA of deceased Geeta was found in the quilt recovered from the room. These circumstances suggest that the petitioner was last seen with deceased Geeta and Nisha, he had articles belonging to both deceased individuals and he was in contact with the deceased Nisha on the night of the incident. These circumstantial evidence prima facie establishes the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of a crime. 12. It was submitted that the DNA of the petitioner was not found in the objects retrieved from the room. These circumstantial evidence prima facie establishes the petitioner’s involvement in the commission of a crime. 12. It was submitted that the DNA of the petitioner was not found in the objects retrieved from the room. However, this fact is inconsequential because his Aadhaar card was found in the room, indicating his presence there. The discovery of the DNA of the deceased in the bed sheet and the quilt further corroborates their presence in the same room. Therefore, it can be inferred that the deceased and the petitioner were present together in the same room. 13. It was submitted that, according to the prosecution, the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner was found in the room, and he had also handed over copies of the Aadhaar Card to the jeweller at the time of the sale of the ring, which is inherently improbable. This submission cannot be accepted. The petitioner had only handed over the photocopy of the Aadhaar Card to the jeweller and not the Aadhaar Card itself. An individual can possess multiple photocopies of their Aadhaar Card, and the mere fact that the Aadhaar Card was found at another location does not disprove the possibility that the petitioner submitted the Aadhaar Card to another person. Consequently, this circumstance does not raise any doubts regarding the validity of the prosecution case. 14. Thus there is prime facie sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 inter alia. The offence is heinous and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for approximately three years, and his right to a speedy trial is being violated. This submission cannot be accepted in the absence of copies of the order sheet demonstrating that the delay is attributable to the prosecution and not to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner cannot assert a claim for release on bail due to the violation of his right to a speedy trial. Additionally, the status report indicates that five witnesses have been examined, and one witness has been given up by the prosecution. This clearly indicates that the trial is progressing at a normal pace. Consequently, the petitioner cannot assert a claim for release on bail due to the violation of his right to a speedy trial. Additionally, the status report indicates that five witnesses have been examined, and one witness has been given up by the prosecution. This clearly indicates that the trial is progressing at a normal pace. However, the petitioner can approach the Court if it is discovered that there is a delay in the progress of the trial due to circumstances not attributable to him. 16. No other point was urged. 17. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 18. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.