Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 97 (HP)

Ramesh Kumar @ Bittu v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-01-08

SUSHIL KUKREJA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 45/2023, dated 15.08.2023, under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.08.2023 a telephonic information was received at Police Post Haripur Dhar that a person was found dead in suspicious circumstances. Accordingly, the police party left for Haripurdhar and found the corpse of deceased Rajender alias Pappu at Kharoti Khala. The police recorded the statement of Rajender Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C., who stated that today at about 8:40 p.m. his sister telephonically inquired from him that her husband Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) could not be seen anywhere. On this, when he started searching for his brother-in-law (Jija), he came to know that his brother-in-law was sitting in the hotel of Manoj Chhinta at Haripurdhar and on making inquiries, Manoj Chhinta disclosed to him that Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) had left his homestay at about 6:30 p.m. At about 10 p.m. he was telephonically informed by Sunder Lalta that Rajender alias Pappu (deceased) was murdered by Kaka Manta and thereafter he was taken in a car and his corpse was thrown in a gorge near Kharoti Khala. Sunder Lalta also told him that Kaka Manta was accompanying Naresh and Singhta. Thereafter, the complainant Rajender Kumar alognwith Ankit and Tanmay went to Kharoti Khala in search of the deceased and found the corpse of the deceased lying in the ghaasni at a distance of about 50-60 meters from the road. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR in question came to be registered and the investigation commenced. On 15.08.2023, accused Saurav Manta and Lucky were arrested. On 20.08.2023, Ramesh Chand alias Bittu surrendered before the police. 3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On 15.08.2023, accused Saurav Manta and Lucky were arrested. On 20.08.2023, Ramesh Chand alias Bittu surrendered before the police. 3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not at all involved in the alleged offence and the prosecution has linked him only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as he was neither present at the place of occurrence, nor he had anything to do with the alleged offence. He further contended that one of the co-accused namely Rajat Lalta has already been released on bail by this Court, as such, the present petitioner also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case. 6. The perusal of the record reveals that on 14.08.2023, accused Rajat Lalta and Naresh Kumar and Jagdish alias JD were present at Lohandhar and in the meantime, Balbir alias Ballu also reached there. Accused Rajat Lalta brought one bottle of liquor there and except Jagdish alias JD, all of them had consumed liquor. Accused Naresh Kumar had also asked accused Saurav Manta alias Kaka on telephone to reach there. Since at that time accused Lucky was also present in the house of accused Saurav Manta, as such, both of them came to Lohandhar in a car bearing registration No. HP-08A-6468, where except Jagdish all of them had consumed liquor. Thereafter all of them went to Haripurdhar in the aforesaid car. There accused Rajat Lalta had purchased another bottle of liquor and at Haripurdhar, Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu (petitioner herein) also met them, from where, all of them went towards Nahan Side. A little ahead of Haripurdhar, all of them, except Jagdish consumed liquor, where accused Naresh Kumar desired to have charas/sulfa. Therefore, accused Naresh Kumar had called Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased), who used to sell charas/sulfa. However, he refused to give them charas. A little ahead of Haripurdhar, all of them, except Jagdish consumed liquor, where accused Naresh Kumar desired to have charas/sulfa. Therefore, accused Naresh Kumar had called Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased), who used to sell charas/sulfa. However, he refused to give them charas. On this, all of them except Balbir alias Ballu and Jagdish alias JD had planned to kill Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) and they again called him on telephone to give them charas. He (deceased) agreed to it and aksed them to come to Rajgarh road. At Rajgarh road, accused Rajat Lalta and Jagdish alighted from the car and accused Naresh Kumar had again called Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) on his phone. At that time, Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) was sitting in the homestay of Manoj Chhinta and thereafter, he came there and sat in the car of accused Saurav Manta, in which, accused Naresh Kumar and Lucky were already sitting. A little ahead Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) gave charas to them and in the meantime, accused Rajat Lalta and Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu (petitioner) also came there and all of them had consumed charas. Petitioner kept one knife in the car of accused Saurav Manta. The car was being driven by accused Saurav Manta and at that time accused Lucky was sitting on the co-driver seat and on the rear seats accused Naresh Kumar, Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) and Balbir alias Ballu were sitting. However, petitioner Ramesh Kumar and accused Rajat Lalta did not sit in the car and came back towards Haripurdhar Bazaar. A little ahead, accused Saurav Manta had parked his car on the side of the road and accused Naresh Kumar gave him knife and thereafter, accused Saurav Manta stabbed the deceased on his neck, as a result of which, he died. After that in order to destroy the evidence, accused Naresh Kumar and Saurav Manta threw the dead body of the deceased below the road near Kharoti Khala. 7. The law with respect to the grant or refusal of bail is well settled. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. After that in order to destroy the evidence, accused Naresh Kumar and Saurav Manta threw the dead body of the deceased below the road near Kharoti Khala. 7. The law with respect to the grant or refusal of bail is well settled. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49 , it has been held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un- convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta Vs. CBI , (2017) 5 SCC 218 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the decision rendered in Sanjay Chandra’s case (supra) by holding as under:- “16. This Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 , also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 9. Similar reiteration of law can be found in Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , (2018) 3 SCC 22 , wherein it has been held that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty and the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home is an exception. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “1. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. ……………… 4. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.” 10. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.” 10. The story of the prosecution is that all the accused persons had made a plan to eliminate the deceased and to extort money from him, however, at this stage, no satisfactory material has been placed on record by the prosecution to suggest that the petitioner was also involved in the alleged crime, as admittedly he was not present at the place of occurrence where the deceased was killed, rather as per the prosecution story itself, he alongwith Rajat Lalta had alighted from the car and came back to Haripurdhar Bazaar. At this stage, there is no concrete material on record to suggest that the petitioner had also participated in the commission of murder of the deceased in furtherance of common intention. There is also prima facie no satisfactory evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner had shared common intention of committing murder of the deceased. In the judgments cited above, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that one is deemed to be innocent till the time he/she is not proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case in hand, the complicity, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be established on record, as such, there is no reason to let the petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial especially when he is in custody since 19.08.2023. The record reveals that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed on 10.11.2023 and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence and that he will abscond and flee from justice, if enlarged on bail. The apprehension expressed by the State that in the event of being enlarged on bail,the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or flee from justice can be met by putting the petitioner to stringent conditions. The apprehension expressed by the State that in the event of being enlarged on bail,the petitioner may tamper with the evidence or flee from justice can be met by putting the petitioner to stringent conditions. Needless to state that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and the object of the bail is to secure the presence of the accused in the trial. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 45/2023, dated 15.08.2023, under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P., shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The bail order is, however, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ; (ii) that he 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 from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police; (iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner; (iv) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case. (v) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. 12. Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner. 13. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. 14. 13. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein. 14. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software. 15. In case, the petitioner is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Nahan. The Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is further directed that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, the said fact be submitted to this Court.