Harvinder Chauhan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 272 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1628 of 2020 along with Cr.M.P. (M) Nos. 2014, 2015,

.

                                                       2017, 2019 and 2020 of 2020





                                                       Reserved on: 28.12.2020





                                                       Date of decision: 6.1.2021


    1.   Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020
    Harvinder Chauhan.                                                             ...Petitioner.




                               Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                   ...Respondent.

    2.      Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2014 of 2020


    Bindu Ram.                                                                     ...Petitioner.
                              Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                   ...Respondent.


    3.      Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2015 of 2020
    Balbir Singh.                                                                  ...Petitioner.
                              Versus




    State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                   ...Respondent.





    4.      Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2017 of 2020
    Amit.                                                                          ...Petitioner.





                              Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                   ...Respondent.

    5.      Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2019 of 2020
    Lal Singh.                                                                     ...Petitioner.
                              Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                   ...Respondent.

    6.      Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2020 of 2020
    Kuldeep.                                                                       ...Petitioner.
                              Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh.                                                   ...Respondent.
    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, through Video Conferencing.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

2 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

For the Respondent: Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, through Video Conferencing.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

.

Petitioners herein are accused in case FIR No. 44 of 2020,

dated 2.6.2020, registered under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 323,

325, 504, 302 IPC, in Police Station Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P.

2. As per status report, on 2.6.2020, telephonic information

was received in Police Station, Shillai from Medical Officer, Community

Health Centre (CHC), Shillai that a person injured in a quarrel had

been brought for treatment in CHC. The said information was reduced

into writing as GD No. 004, dated 2.6.2020 at 7:36 A.M. and Head

Constable Naveen Kumar along with Constable Gaurav was sent to

CHC Shillai, who in CHC had recorded statement of complainant

Kiran, an eye witness, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein she had

stated that on 31.5.2020, on path approaching cowshed of her Chacha

Sasur (father-in-law) Chander Singh, cemented concrete was laid to

stop the rainy water entering therein and on 2.6.2020 at about 6:30

A.M., when she was working in kitchen, accused Rajinder, Kuldeep,

Varinder, Amit, Balbir, Hitesh, Harvinder and Lal Singh came to their

house and started questioning her father-in-law Bishan (now

deceased), reason for cementing edge of the path, whereupon her

father-in-law had replied that it had been done to stop rainy water

entering in cowshed of Chander Singh. Thereafter accused person

started abusing her father-in-law and dragged him outside the house

and started beating him. At that time Rajinder and Varinder were

having iron rod and iron pipe, respectively, in their hands and others

were having dandas in their hands. Upon this her Taya Sasur Partap

3 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

Singh and Chacha Sasur Chander Singh had come on spot to save

her father-in-law Bishan. Accused persons had beaten them also and

thereafter all accused left the place and in this incident her father-in-

.

law Bishan received injuries on his head, ear and other parts of body

and Taya Sasur Partap Singh in his head and hand and Chacha Sasur

Chander Singh in his head. On the basis of statement of complainant,

recorded at about 9:10 A.M., rucka was prepared and sent to the

Police Station for registration of FIR and FIR was registered.

3. It is apparent from record produced by Police that during

intervening time, accused persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Amit

Kumar had approached the Police Station at 8:53 A.M. and submitted

an application to the SHO, stating therein that on 2.6.2020, Kuldeep

Singh, on waking up at about 6-6:30 A.M., saw that in ancestral path

approaching their house, with the help of wooden planks, concrete had

been laid, resulting into closure of their path, which earlier was also

obstructed by Chander Singh and his brother. So Kuldeep Singh

questioned Chander Singh about reason for doing so, who at that time

was sowing crop of wheat in his field situated adjacent to house of

Kuldeep Singh, whereupon Chander Singh started arguing with him

and hearing noise of altercation, his brother Bishan Singh, Pratap

Singh, Swaran Singh and his nephew Dinesh, Sunita, Kamla Devi,

Nisha Devi, Seema Devi had also come to the spot near his house and

started quarreling with him. Dinesh was having danda in his hand and

he hit the head of Kuldeep Singh with the same from behind,

whereupon Amit, brother of Kuldeep Singh, on hearing noise, had

come to rescue Kuldeep Singh but he (Amit) was also pulled down by

Chander Singh and Bishan Singh, causing him injuries in his leg and

4 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

body. According to Kuldeep Singh, persons namely Nater Singh, Giar

Singh, Bansi, Vinod, Narender Singh etc. had come on the spot and

had rescued them from Chander Singh etc. and in this incident

.

Kuldeep Singh had received injuries on his head and his brother Amit

had received injuries in legs and other parts of body. On the basis of

this complaint of Kuldeep Singh, FIR No. 43 of 2020, dated 2.6.2020

was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 451, 323 and 341 IPC.

4. Injured Bishan (now deceased) was referred from CHC

Shillai to Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. At about 1:30 P.M. telephonic

information was received in Police station Shillai from Police Station

Paonta Sahib that Bishan Singh had expired, whereupon Dy. S.P.

Paonta Sahib had constituted a Special Investigating Team (SIT) for

investigation of the case and Section 302 IPC was also added in the

FIR.

5. During investigation postmortem report of Bishan Singh

was obtained, wherein it had been opined by the Doctors that most

probable cause of death was head injury, leading to failure of vital

function of brain and cardiac arrest.

6. Blood samples from the spot were also picked up and sent

for chemical analysis. MLCs of injured Pratap Singh and Chander

Singh were also received from the Medical Officer and injury of

Chander Singh was found to be grievous in nature, whereas injury of

Pratap Singh was simple in nature. On the basis of Medico Legal

Certificate of Chander Singh, Section 325 IPC was also incorporated in

the case FIR.

7. As per status report, during investigation, it has come that

accused persons had entered the house of Bishan Singh with intention

5 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

to attack him to beat him, therefore, Section 451 IPC was converted

into Section 452 IPC.

8. As per status report, from the road till last house of the

.

village, there is 4-5 feet wide ancestral public path, but near cowshed

of Chander Singh, its width is about 3 feet and the house of petitioners-

accused is situated 15-20 feet away, whereas house of accused

persons is situated on the other side of the path opposite to cowshed

of complainant party and path on that portion is in the shape of stairs.

Earlier this path was kachcha and now through Panchayat, under

MMGPY Scheme, it has been cemented under the supervision of Up

Pradhan Diwan Singh, Ward Member Kalpana and local resident

accused Rajinder Singh on 30.5.2019 with tile flooring. During

investigation, it has been disclosed by complainant party that rainy

water of this path was entering in the cowshed of Chander Singh,

whereupon Chander Singh etc., to stop the rainy water entering in his

cowshed, had cemented the side of the path adjacent to the wall of

cowshed on 31.5.2020. It is further case of the prosecution that on

2.6.2020 when Shanta wife of Chander Singh was going to cowshed

for milking at about 6:30 A.M., then accused Rajinder Singh had met

her on the public path near lintel of cowshed and had asked reason for

laying concrete on the side of the path along with wall of cowshed,

whereupon Shanta had explained that it had been done to stop rainy

water entering in the cowshed. Thereafter accused persons conspired

and dismantled/removed the concrete, cement laid by Chander Singh

and then they went to the house of Bishan Singh and dragged him to

the spot near lintel of cowshed and beat him with iron rod and pipe

carried by Rajinder Singh and Virender Singh and with dandas carried

6 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

by Kuldeep Singh, Balbir, Lal Singh, Harvinder, Amit Kumar and

juvenile Hitesh Chaunan. Brothers of Bishan Singh were also beaten

by them when they tried to save Bishan Singh from clutches of

.

accused persons. Bishan Singh fell on the lintel unconscious after

receiving injuries in his head and Pratap Singh and Chander Singh

also received injuries and thereafter accused persons ran away from

the spot.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that instead of

accused persons, complainant party in present case is aggressor. To

substantiate his plea, he has stated that accused Kuldeep and Amit

had approached the Police Station immediately after the incident and

had lodged FIR No. 43 of 2020 with respect to the incident which is

prior to FIR lodged by complainant and, therefore, FIR lodged by

complainant party in present case is an afterthought and counter blast

to the FIR lodged by Kuldeep against them. Further he submits that

accused persons in present case never had any intention to kill Bishan

Singh and as there was no intention to kill Bishan Singh, accused

persons are entitled for bail for absence of such intention despite the

fact that Bishan Singh had succumbed to injuries. It is also canvassed

by learned counsel for the petitioners that carrying a danda in hand is

not carrying a lethal weapon in hand with intention to kill and further

that injuries received by Bishan Singh also reflect that there was no

intention to kill as it is reported in the postmortem report that deceased

had received three injuries only and there was only one injury in his

head because, had accused persons have intention to kill Bishan

Singh, they would have not given single blow on head, but would have

7 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

beat him mercilessly and, therefore, all the petitioners are entitled for

bail.

10. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case only

.

Rajinder was having iron rod in his hand and thus even if it is

presumed for argument sake only that he was having intention to kill,

then also it cannot be presumed that all other accused were also

having the same intention as that of accused Rajinder, who is not one

of the petitioners herein. He has further submitted that Harvinder

Chauhan is 19 years old and is physically handicapped and further that

Lal Singh, who is 61 years old, has been roped in the case in order to

implicate all male members of the family and minor Hitesh has also

been implicated despite the fact that all the accused were not present

on the spot.

11. Learned Additional Advocate General, submits that not

only Rajinder, but Varinder alias Bindu Ram was also having iron rod

in his hand and other accused accompanying them, carrying dandas in

their hands, cannot be said not having any intention to commit murder,

as any prudent man can easily visualize that by hitting a person with

iron road and iron pipe in the head may cause death and, therefore,

according to him, all accused were having knowledge of result of their

action that by attacking with iron road and iron pipe, it may cause

death of a victim and, therefore, all of them have definitely joined

Rajinder and Varinder with intention to kill the opposite party.

12. Incident in present case is an admitted fact, as cross FIR

has also been lodged by petitioner Kuldeep Singh, alleging that he and

Amit had received injuries. Therefore, presence of Kuldeep and Amit

on the spot is also an admitted fact. Though FIR No. 43 lodged by

8 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

Kuldeep Singh has been registered at 8:30 A.M. and statement of

complainant Kiran under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has been recorded at

9:10 A.M. and FIR No. 44 of 2020 on the basis of that statement has

.

been registered lateron, but recording of statement of complainant and

lodging of FIR in consonance thereto at a time later than the

registration of FIR No. 43 of 2020 is inconsequential as complainant

party in present case, instead of approaching the Police had rushed

the victim to the hospital for treatment, who was in serious condition

and lateron succumbed to his injuries in the hospital at Paonta Sahib.

Whereas, Kuldeep Singh and Amit Kumar instead of getting any

treatment had gone to the Police Station to lodge the complaint prior in

time than the complainant party in present case.

13. This Court in case Sandeep Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh, reported in 2019 (1) Shim. LC 263, on the basis of

judgments of the Supreme Court, has enumerated various principles

and relevant factors, evolved in those pronouncements, to be taken

into consideration and to be kept in mind at the time of consideration of

bail application, which reads as under:-

"13. Some of the principles evolved in various pronouncements of the apex Court are as under:

1. Grant of bail is general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in correction home during trial is an exception and presumption of innocence, i.e. person is believed to be innocent until found guilty is fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence. But, these principles are not applicable in cases where there is reverse onus and/or statutory presumption with regard to commission of offence. Such cases are to be dealt with differently keeping in view statutory presumption and reverse onus provided under the relevant statute. (See Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, para 1)

9 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

2. While making a general statement of law that the accused is innocent, till proved guilty, the statutory provisions of relevant Act, like Section 29 of the POCSO Act, have to be taken into

.

consideration which provides for presumption as to

commission of any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias

Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 22)

3. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario

and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The Court has only to opine as to whether there is prima facie case

against the accused. The Court must not undertake

meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment upon the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the

accused of a fair trial. (See Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180)

4. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of

certain observations made in a different context. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score

and understanding of the pronouncements in the field. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406, para 14)

5. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406, para 16; CBI versus Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452)

10 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

6. The Courts are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of the constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact,

.

some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of

liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilised society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be

paralysed and immobilised. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law,

anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one,

the liberty of an individual is not absolute. [The] society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an

individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be

pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and

accountability from its members, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished

social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in the disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law. (See Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P., (2014) 6 SCC 508, para 16; Rakesh Ranjan Yadav versus CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70, para 16; Masroor versus State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286, para 15; Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, paras 10 & 25; Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu versus State of Bihar and another, (2016) 9 SCC 443 paras 10, 11)

11 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

7. Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case are to be avoided. (See Puran versus Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338, para 8; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC

.

528: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11); Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para 13; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018)

11 SCC 458, para 2.) Consideration of details of the evidence is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of

the merits of the case should be avoided by refraining from considering the merits of material/evidence collected by the prosecution. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of

Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, para 15; and Criminal

Appeal No. 1175 of 2018, titled The State of Orissa versus Mahimananda Mishra, decided on 18th September, 2018)

8. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt with by the trial Judge. (See Dataram

Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3

SCC 22, para 16)

9. Where prima facie involvement of the accused is apparent,

material contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial and not at the time of consideration of grant of bail. (See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 28)

10. Probability or improbability of the prosecution version has to be judged based on the material available to the court at the time when bail is considered and not on the basis of discrepancies. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, para 21)

11. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases involving serious offences should be given. (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11); Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta versus Central Bureau of

12 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

Investigation and another, (2012) 4 SCC 134, para 32; Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para13; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 29)

.

12. At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the

evidence. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15)

13. Giving reasons is different from discussing evidence/merits and demerits. (See Puran versus Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338, para 8; State of Bihar versus Rajballav

Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav,

(2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15)

14. Under Section 439 CrPC, the Sessions Court and the High

Court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore, an application filed before the High Court under Section 439

CPC, after rejection of an application filed before Sessions Court under the said Section, is definitely a successive

application and is not a revision or appeal against rejection of bail application by the Sessions Court.

15. An accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. (See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 30)

16. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, para 24; Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala versus State of Gujarat (2008) 3 SCC 775, para 22 and Ram Govind

13 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598, para

9)

17. Filing of charge sheet establishes that after due investigation

.

the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed

the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka

and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406, para 12).

14. The relevant factors to be kept in mind at the time of consideration of bail applications are as follows:

(1) Satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge as to whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(2) Nature and gravity of the accusation/ charge;

(3) Seriousness of the offence/crime and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(4) Nature and character of supportive evidence;

(5) Character, conduct, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(6) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully; circumstances which

are peculiar to the accused and the Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case;

(7) The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(8) Position and status of accused with reference to the victim and witnesses to assess the impact that release of accused may make on the prosecution witnesses and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced or tampered with or apprehension of threat to the complainant/ witnesses and possibility of obstructing the course of justice;

(9) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(10) likelihood and possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences;

(11) A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and danger of the accused absconding or fleeing from justice;

14 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

(12) Impact of grant of bail on the society and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail affecting the larger interest of the public or the State;

.

(13) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a

balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the

accused;

(14) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(15) Whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(16) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be

considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail;

(17) No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls

for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court.

(See - Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of

Delhi) (2001) 4 SCC 280; Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598; Chaman Lal versus State of U.P. and another, (2004) 7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, para 11); Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13, para 16); State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, para 18; Prashanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694; Prakash Kadam versus Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189; Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180; Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129; The State of Orissa versus Mahimananda Mishra, (2018) 10 SCC 516".

14. As per statement of complainant, which was made

immediately after the incident in the hospital, co-accused Rajinder and

petitioner Bindu Ram alias Varinder were having iron rod and iron pipe

in their hands and as a matter of fact, Rejoinder @ Raju has not

15 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

preferred any bail application in this Court. Presence of Kuldeep Singh

and Amit Kumar on the spot is also substantiated by contents of FIR

No. 43 of 2020.

.

15. Petitioner Harvinder is a teenager and petitoner Lal Singh

is 61 years old senior citizen. Whereas, petitioner Balbir Singh has

been alleged as a person present on the spot along with other accused

persons.

16. Considering the role of accused persons and weapon

used by them, as has come on record in the statement of complainant,

content and effect of cross FIR and also nature and gravity of offence,

impact thereof on the society and period of detention of the petitioners,

I am of the opinion that in case of petitioners Kuldeep Singh in Cr.M.P.

(M) No. 2020 of 2020, Bindu Ram alias Virender in Cr.M.P. (M) No.

2014 of 2020 and Amit Kumar in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2017 of 2020,

balance of public interest is heavier than personal interest and thus

they are not entitled for bail at this stage. Whereas for their age as

well as role attributed in the complaint, petitioners Lal Singh in Cr.M.P.

(M) No. 2019 of 2020, Balbir Singh in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2015 of 2020

and Harvinder Chauhan in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 can be

treated differently and may be enlarged on bail.

17. In view of above, Cr.M.P. (M) Nos. 2020, 2014 and 2017

of 2020 are dismissed.

18. Petitioners in Cr.M.P. (M) Nos. 2019, 2015 and 1628 of

2020 are ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bonds

in the sum of `50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount,

to the satisfaction of trial Court within two weeks from today and upon

such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial

16 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to ensure

the presence of the petitioners at the time of trial:-

(i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available to

.

the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in

the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. They shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or

intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioners shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioners shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which they are accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any

manner;

(vi) that the petitioners shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that they shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for their

availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) they shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

19. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing

and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the

petitioners, enlarged on bail, as deemed necessary in the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon,

it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further

condition on the petitioners as it may deem necessary in the interest of

justice.

20. In case the petitioners, enlarged on bail, violate any

conditions imposed upon them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of

law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

17 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1628 of 2020 & connected matters.

21. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions

issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc.

Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

.

22. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not

affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for

the disposal of the bail applications.

23. The petitioners, enlarged on bail, are permitted to produce

copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and the trial

Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, he may

verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

                                                        (Vivek Singh Thakur),
     th
    6 January, 2020                                           Judge.
          (Keshav)