Imran Khan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 916 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.182 of 2021 Reserved on : January 29, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: February 4, 2021.

    Imran Khan                                                              ...Petitioner.





                                    Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh                                              ...Respondent.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 NO

    For the petitioner:     Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Narinder Thakur & Mr. Kamal Kant, Dy. Advocate Generals and Mr. Manoj Bagga,

Assistant Advocate General, for the State.

                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE






        FIR No. Dated             Police Station                   Sections
        82    of 15.8.2019        Chirgaon, District       Shimla, 302, 392, 34 of the
        2019                      H.P.                             Indian Penal Code.





    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for allegedly committing murder

of an old woman aged about 70 years, has come up before this Court under Section

439 of CrPC, seeking regular bail, on the grounds that co-accused was granted bail

by this Court and on parity he is also entitled to the same.

2. A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail

petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges

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

Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 &

15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory

.

bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the

Sessions Judge.

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Manoj Pathak,

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, 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 are that on 15.8.2019, complainant

Smt. Surjani Devi, informed the police that her mother Smt. Rampati aged about 70

years, resided alone in Chirgaon. She stated that her younger sister informed her that

Phone of her mother is responding with message 'Phone Switched off'. On this, at

around 5:15 p.m., she went to her room to inquire about her well being. The door of

her room was bolted from outside and sound of television was audible from inside.

On opening the door, she found her mother to have been strangulated. She also

noticed that her ornaments were missing. On the basis of this information, police

recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. leading to registration of the

aforesaid FIR.

5. After that on 16th August, 2019, the police sent the body of Rampati for

postmortem to IGMC, Shimla. Vide postmortem report No.2/2019, the Forensic

Medicine Expert opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.

This report was given under the seal and signature of Dr. Peeyush Kapila, Associate

Professor at IGMC, Shimla.

6. The police swung into action and recorded the statement of one occupant of

the building, namely Suraj, a young boy of 19 years. He stated that at 10:30 a.m.,

.

three young persons had visited the building and had demanded keys of the room of

Mushtaq Ahmad from Rampati. He stated that out of those three persons, two were

well known to him. He named one Mohd. Arif, R/o Bilaspur and second one Imran

Khan, R/o Sundernagar, District Mandi (petitioner herein). He stated that he did not

know the name of 3rd person, but he could recognize him. After that, they had

entered into arguments with Rampati and were demanding keys, however, Rampati

had refused to handover keys to them. He further stated that at 12:00 noon or 1:00

p.m., the sound of television was audible from the room of Rampati. At 5:30 p.m.,

he came to know from her daughter that Rampati had been murdered. This young

boy, Suraj stated that he knows the two persons very well and he could recognize the

3rd person as well.

7. After the police got CCTV footage and showed the photographs to Suraj who

identified the 3rd person. Subsequently, the police splashed the photographs to entire

area and consequently at Ghanahatti, the police detained these three persons from

HRTC bus which was en- routed from Sarahan to Chintpuri. A Daily Diary No.6

dated 16.8.2019, was entered at 2:48 a.m.

8. After that, accused Arif Mohd. made a disclosure statement under Section 27

of the Evidence Act, which led to recovery of stolen ornaments which he had

concealed under the seat of the HRTC bus.

9. The accused Mohit Khan, vide statement dated 19.8.2019, showed to the police

the building of Rampati and the place where he was standing at the time of alleged

incident. He also disclosed to the police that Mohd. Arif and Imran Khan had

entered into the room of Rampati and had closed the door. After sometime, both of

them came out and bolted the door and came down.

.

10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the incarceration before the proof

of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

11. On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient

evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused. 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.

REASONING:

12. The reasoning, while granting bail to the co-accused in Cr.MP(M) No.1975 of

2019, titled Mohit Khan vs. State, is no manner applicable to the present petitioner,

against whom there is ample evidence. Further reference to the petition also reveals

that there are no grounds on which he is entitled to bail. As such, he has failed to

make out a case for bail.

13. 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 S. 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the

Ld. Counsel referred were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies have been

supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a

document which is in the Counsel's brief and not on the Court's file.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 4, 2021 (ks). r