Yuv Raj vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 868 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 2264 of 2020 Reserved on: 27th January, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: 04th February, 2021.

    Yuv Raj                                                               ...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        :   Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms.
                          r       Anaida Kuthiala, Advocate.

    For the respondent :          Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Seema

Sharma, Dy. A.G., Mr. Shreyek Sharda, Sr. Asstt.

A.G. and Mr. Manoj Bagga, Asstt. A.G.

                              THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE



        FIR No.   Dated      Police Station                Sections
        157/18    23.10.2018 Karsog, District Mandi        302, 323, 342, 34 IPC &
                                                           3(2) (v) SCST Act.




    Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for committing murder has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed petition under Section 439 CrPC before this Court. However, vide order dated 5.3.2020, a coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the petition.

3. The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anaida Kuthiala, Advocate states on instructions that the petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed was more

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

than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 23 rd October, 2018, the

.

police officials recorded statement of complainant Lajya Devi, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She stated that one of her daughters was married, however, her husband abandoned her 19 years ago. She further stated that her daughter is blessed with a

son named Bhupender. Because of her abandonment, she has provided four biswas of land to her daughter, where she has constructed a house. She took care of her and Bhupender and even shared the burden of marriage. She stated that yesterday her

daughter informed her that at about 6.30 p.m., Bhupender along with her daughter had gone to Baral Bazar to buy crackers. After sometime, the daughter returned home, but Bhupender did not turn up. After sometime they received a phone call

from hospital that Bhupender was brought to the Hospital in injured condition. They

inquired about the incident and came to know that from a place, opposite the shop of Om Prakash, Bhupender was taken to Hospital and he was dropped at that place, after giving him beatings. Later on, Bhupender was shifted to IGMC Shimla for

treatment, from where he was again shifted to PGI Chandigarh. Based on the information, the Police registered the FIR under Sections 342, 323 IPC. Later on, on 26th October, 2018, Bhupender succumbed to the injuries in PGI Chandigarh.

Thereafter, Section 302 IPC was inserted in the FIR. The investigation revealed involvement of Yuv Raj, petitioner herein and he was arrested on 27 th October, 2018.

The police also recovered the car used in the offence. Since after postmortem, the cause of death was 'blunt trauma to head' as such, the investigation proceeded

towards that direction. The investigation revealed that deceased Bhupender Kumar along with accused Yuv Raj, had purchased beer from a liquor vend and then both of them went towards Karsog Bus Stand. In the car, they entered into arguments and then started beatings each other and subsequently Yuv Raj, with a view to, kill him threw him on the road. The FSL detected 141.85 mg% of Alcohol from the blood sample of the deceased.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anaida Kuthiala, Advocate contends that the incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner. Another argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding

.

people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain statements and memos from the police report, prepared under Section 173(2) CrPC, copies of which the accused

had duly received in compliance to Section 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the leanred Counsel referred were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a document in the Counsel's brief and not on Court's file.

8. Leanred counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons mentioned above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the

evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused.

9. Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

10. 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).