Ashok Kumar vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 857 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 1793 of 2020 Reserved on : 19th January, 2021.

.

Date of Decision : 04th February, 2021.

    Ashok Kumar                                                            ...Petitioner.

                                   Versus





    State of H.P.                                                         ...Respondent.

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 NO

For the petitioner r:

Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Bhupender Thakur & Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Dy.

A.Gs. and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

                              THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

        FIR No.   Dated          Police Station                       Sections




        9/2019    16.1.2019      Kihar, District Chamba               302 & 323 IPC

    Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court

under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail on the grounds that during the trial, the material witnesses have not supported the case set up by the prosecution.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 31.07.2020, learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, HP, dismissed the petition.

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more,

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner, which led to the registration of

.

the FIR, mentioned above, are that on 16.1. 2019, on receiving information about the death of Baldev Singh, due to a fall from a cliff on being kicked by the accused, the police recorded the statement of Vipan Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which led

to registration of FIR mentioned above. The complainant alleged that he, Baldev Singh (deceased), Sahab Singh, Jagdish and Bhagat Ram, work as labours in Baira Syul Project Surgani. On 15.1.2019, after their duty hours, they reached a liquor

vend. Ashok Kumar accused-petitioner and Bhim Singh were already there. Ashok Kumar told Vipan (complainant) and Baldev Singh (deceased), that a boy has born to his brother's wife and he would give them a party. After that all of them started

consuming liquor. In between, one Sunil Kumar, driver of HRTC, reached there.

Except Sahab Singh, they all consumed liquor. At 9.00 p.m., they started returning to their homes. After walking 50 meters, Ashok Kumar, the petitioner, all of a sudden, started quarrelling with Bhim Singh. On this, the complainant and Baldev Singh

intervened and separated them. However, Ashok Kumar was not in his senses and Bhim Singh started running. On this, Ashok Kumar chased him. To save himself, Bhim Singh got down from a retaining wall. On this, Baldev Singh (deceased)

caught hold of Bhim Singh by saying that this place is very dangerous and he could fall and told him that they would calm down Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar had taken

off his shirt and Baldev Singh was holding the same in his hand. In between Ashok Kumar reached there and gave a kick blow to Baldev Singh, who fell down the cliff

and rolled upto 500 meters and died on the spot. During the investigation, the police recovered the shirt of Ashok Kumar from 20 feet below the road.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. On the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General contends that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

7. During investigation, all the persons, who were present at the spot have narrated the same version. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain statements from the report filed under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C.,

however, he read them from his file and did not annex the same to the petition. This Court cannot place reliance upon such statements in the absence of the same being part of the record. On the face of it, it is a case supported by number of eye

.

witnesses and Baldev Singh, who wanted to save the life of Bhim Singh, lost his own

life because of the high headedness and the kick, which the accused-petitioner gave to him. Thus no case for grant of bail is made out and the petition is dismissed .

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made a number of other arguments, but given the fact that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the above-mentioned reasons, discussion of the same, will be an exercise in futility.

9. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.

(Anoop Chitkara),

Vacation Judge.

February 04, 2021 (ps).