The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court observed that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that proper medical treatment was not made available to the deceased and he would have survived had he been treated immediately after he was taken to the hospital.
Brief Facts:
The informant Pappu Ram made a statement to the police stating that he, his brother-in-law Kuldeep Singh, Raj Kumar, and Nisar had gone to Rait Tawani on 15.2.2021. They purchased two bottles of country liquor and consumed them. Raj Kumar was driving the vehicle. He and Deepak had an altercation. Raj Kumar stopped the vehicle and slapped Deepak. The informant and Raj Kumar went together towards Shamnagar. Deepak stopped them near Mahajan Clinic Chowk at about 7.00 PM. He started beating Raj Kumar. The informant intervened and Deepak also abused him. Deepak gave him kicks and fist blows. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. Raj Kumar succumbed to his injuries on 16.2.2021.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no person except the informant who has supported the prosecution case. There is a delay in concluding the trial. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is direct evidence against the petitioner. He had used the brick to cause hurt to the deceased which resulted in his death. The offence against the petitioner is heinous and he is not entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner submitted that the incident was witnessed only by the informant who was walking along with the deceased when the accused came and attacked the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that any other person had witnessed the incident. It was further submitted that the injured was taken to the hospital; however, he was not treated and was sent to his home. He would have survived if the proper medical attention had been given to him.
The Court observed that the mere fact that no person except the informant had supported the prosecution case does not entitle the petitioner to be released on bail. Further, the mere fact that if immediate expert treatment had been available, there were chances of survival of the deceased is not sufficient to acquit the accused because of Explanation-2 to Section 299 of IPC. Thus, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that proper medical treatment was not made available to the deceased and he would have survived had he been treated immediately after he was taken to the hospital.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case No.: Cr. MP (M) No. 2936 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
