Shubhakar Saket vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 999 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 48 of 2021 Reserved on: 19th January, 2021.

.

Date of Decision: 04th February, 2021.

    Shubhakar Saket                                                        ...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. Suneet Goel, Advocate.

For the respondent :

r Mr. Bhupender Thakur & Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Dy.

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

                             THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE


        FIR No.   Dated          Police Station                       Sections
        61/2016   8.3.2016       Baddi, District Solan, H.P.          302 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 14.06.2019, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, HP, dismissed the petition.

3. The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Suneet Goel, 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.

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

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner, which led to the registration of the FIR, mentioned above, are that on the intervening night of 7/8 th March, 2016, the Police of Police Station Baddi, District Solan received a telephonic information that a

.

quarrel is taking place at the place known as Thetha. Upon this, the police party

reached the spot and recorded the statement of Anil Kumar, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which led to registration of FIR mentioned above. The complainant

informed the police that he works as a labour and lives along with Asraf Ali, Rajneesh, Bakhshish, Astak Mohd. in a room. In the neighbourhood, Shubhakar Saket accused also resides along with his brother. During the night, he heard commotion of quarrel between brothers. After that Anil Saket, came out of his room

and accused Shubhakar followed him carrying 'Tawa' in his hand. Thereafter Shubhakar started beating Asraf Ali. He took him in the room and there started beating bolting the room from inside. After sometime, he came out of window and

his clothes were blood stained. When they opened the door, they found Asraf Ali to

be dead.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first

offender and 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 offence is

heinous, accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail is likely to send a wrong

message to the society.

7. In this case there are large number of eye witnesses, who has seen the accused entering the room, when Asraf Ali was alive and when he came out of the window,

they noticed his dead body in the room and blood on the clothes of the accused.

8. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, has refrred to the statements of ten witnesses, who have been examined. However, the documents which the learned 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.

9. Learned 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.

10. 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.

11. 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).

                           r             to