Raman Khachi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 961 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No.186 of 2021 Reserved on: February 2, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: February 4, 2021.

Raman Khachi

...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. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal & Mr. Somesh Raj, Additional Advocate Generals

and Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

                            THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE





        FIR No. Dated            Police Station                       Sections
        234 of 27.12.2020        Theog, District Shimla, H.P.         302, 34 of the





        2020                                                          Indian Penal Code.

    Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for committing murder of a 52 years old man, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

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

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

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, Ld. 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 27.12.2020, the Police

officials registered the statement of complainant, Smt. Geeta Sharma, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She stated that they were constructing their house. In the neighbourhood situates the house of one Rajesh Khachi. On

27.12.2020 at 3:00 p.m., when her son was going to the shop to bring windows, then

Rajesh Khachi and his sons caught hold of him and started beating him with sticks and rods etc. On noticing that they are beating their son, she alongwith her husband ran there and intervened. Those persons even gave beatings to them. In between,

Rajesh Khachi started beating her husband with some sharp edged weapon. On receiving injuries, her husband became unconscious and he was taken to IGMC, Shimla, where he died. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR

mentioned above.

5. Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel contends that it is a case of sudden fight and to support his contention, he referred to the postmortem report of the deceased.

He further contends that the incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. 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:

7. The arguments of the learned counsel that it is a case of sudden fight, are insignificant till the investigation is complete. Moreso, given the fact that in a broad

day light, despite intervernion of a lady, the accused continued their beating spree. Such being the conduct, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail.

.

8. 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 4, 2021(ks)