Crmpm No.1453/202 vs State Of H.P
2021 Latest Caselaw 274 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMPM No.1453, 1454, 1455, 1512, 1712 and 1934 of 2020 Reserved on : 22.12.2020 Date of Decision : January 6, 2021

.

1. CRMPM No.1453/2020 Mohammad Farhan s/o Mohammad Shahid Ansari

....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ....Respondent.

    2. CRMPM No.1454/2020





    Mohammad Rehan son of Abdul Hakim              ....Petitioner
                         Versus
    State of H.P.                                  ....Respondent.

    3. CRMPM No.1455/2020

    Muzammil Hussain                               ....Petitioner
                         Versus
    State of H.P.                                  ....Respondent.


    4. CRMPM No.1512/2020
    Mohammad Faik                                  ....Petitioner
                         Versus




    State of H.P.                                  ....Respondent.





    5. CRMPM No.1712/2020
    Mohammad Kaif                                  ....Petitioner





                         Versus
    State of H.P.                                  ....Respondent.
    6. CRMPM No.1934/2020
    Mohammad Zaheer                                ....Petitioner
                         Versus
    State of H.P.                                  ....Respondent.

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...2...

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Gautam Sood, Advocate, in CRMPs(M) No.1453,1454,1455 & 1512 of 2020, through Video Conferencing.

Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, in CRMPs(M) No.1712 & 1934 of 2020, through Video Conferencing.

For the respondent- : Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate State General, through Video Conferencing.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

Petitioners, herein, are in judicial lock-up in case

FIR No.7 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, under Sections 302, 147,

149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered in

Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

They have approached this Court, under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking

regular bail in the matter.

2. In status report, filed on behalf of respondent-

State, statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh has been

reiterated, on the basis of which FIR was registered against

the petitioners.

3. According to status report, on 21.1.2020, an

information was received from ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, in

Police Station Parwanoo that a person injured in a quarrel has

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...3...

been brought to the hospital for treatment, whereupon HC

Vinod Kumar alongwith others had rushed to the hospital,

.

where statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh was

recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he had stated

that on that day, i.e. 20.12.2020, at about 11 p.m., when he

was sitting in his vehicle at Sector-6 Parwanoo, near Negi

Petrol Pump, he had received a call on his mobile phone from

Raju, who was friend of crane owner Pushap Behl, requesting

him to accompany Madan Lal in the crane, loaded with a

vehicle, upto Delhi. Complainant had agreed for that and had

come near the crane whereon vehicle of Delhi bearing

registration No.DL-6CM-4200 was loaded an crane driver

Madan Lal was standing near the crane and a white coloured

taxi and 5-6 young men standing around the taxi, were also

there and the taxi driver was demanding fare, which was paid

by one of those young men. Thereafter, the taxi driver left

the place. Immediately thereafter, the man, who had paid the

fare to the taxi driver, had started asking Madan Lal to drop

them at Delhi immediately at that time, whereupon

complainant had enquired Madan Lal about the status of fuel

in the crane and Madan Lal had replied that fuel tank was to

be filled. Thereafter, complainant Madan Lal and a young

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...4...

man of Delhi vehicle boarded the crane and other persons sat

in the vehicle loaded on the crane and crane was taken to

.

Negi Petrol Pump and fuelled for `2000/- paid by the

occupants of Delhi vehicle and then they started towards TTR

to proceed to Delhi, but suddenly it started raining heavily

and upon this complainant Rajan Kumar Singh had parked the

crane at a distance of 35-40 metres from the Petrol Pump on

the right side of the road. On asking by young man, sitting in

the crane, for reason to stop, Madan Lal had told that neither

the wipers nor one of the head lights of the crane were

working and there was some defect in the crane. It was

further told by the deceased that he will take them to Delhi

next morning but the young men did not accept that and had

started scuffling and arguing with deceased Madan Lal in the

crane itself, whereupon Madan Lal had telephonically

informed owner of crane Pushap Behl that there was a defect

in the crane and that the occupants of the car had been

forcing him to move for Delhi and arguing and beating him,

whereupon the crane owner had asked Madan Lal to lock the

crane and to sleep in any other vehicle with further assurance

that he had been coming on the spot, whereupon complainant

Rajan Kumar Singh and Madan Lal got down from the crane

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...5...

and the persons from the Delhi Vehicle had also deboarded

the crane and car and started beating Madan Lal by saying

.

that in case he did not move for Delhi at once then they would

throw him from the road in gorge, whereas Madan Lal had

asked them to talk with owner of the crane who was coming

there. Upon this, petitioners picked up Madan Lal and threw

him in the gorge and had tried to overpower complainant also

narrated the

incident

by saying that he was also to be thrown in the gorge,

whereupon complainant ran towards the Petrol Pump and had

to persons deputed there and

simultaneously he had also informed crane owner Pushap

Behl about the incident. Thereafter, crane owner had arrived

at the Petrol Pump in his own vehicle, accompanied by Tanuj

Behl and Pankaj Kumar, and complainant had also joined him

and when they reached on the spot, petitioners had already

left the place. Thereafter, complainant Rajan Kumar Singh,

Tarun Behl, Pankaj Kumar and crane owner Pushap behl had

gone to the gorge in search of Madan Lal where Madan Lal

was found lying injured, from where Madan Lal was taken to

ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, whereupon information was sent to

Police Station Parwanoo, which led to recording of statement

of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh, under Section 154 Cr.P.C,

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...6...

on the basis of which FIR No.7 of 2020, dated 21.1.2020,

under Sections 307, 147 & 149 IPC was registered.

.

4. Injured Madan Lal (now deceased) was referred for

treatment from ESI Hospital Parwanoo to PGI Chandigarh,

where he was declared brought dead and after his death case

under Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 302 IPC.

5. Petitioners were arrested by the police party on

23.1.2020 from Delhi and on 25.1.2020, they were identified

by complainant Rajan Kumar Singh in Identification Parade

conducted in District Jail Solan, in presence of Executive

Magistrate/Tehsildar.

6. It is case of prosecution that one of the petitioners

had also called the police, threatening to kill deceased Madan

Lal by throwing him in the gorge on his refusal to take them to

Delhi immediately at that time. Conversation of that call was

recorded by the police. CD thereof has also been played in the

Court by the Police Officer present at the time of producing

the record.

7. According to Status Report, voice samples of

Mohammad Faik, Mohammad Farhan and Muzammil Hussain

have been kept safe.

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...7...

8. During investigation, DVDs of CCTV footage have

also been taken in possession by the police wherein it is

.

visible that at about 10.05 pm crane loaded with a car had

arrived at Petrol Pump for filling fuel and in that footage

petitioners, complainant and deceased are also visible and

further that in the CCTV footage, at 11 pm, complainant Rajan

Kumar Singh can be seen running towards and inside the

Petrol Pump.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that

deceased Madan Lal was highly intoxicated as in report

received from Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) quantity of

ethyl alcohol in his blood was found to be 130.78 mg% and

petitioners had not thrown him in the gorge but he himself,

under influence of liquor, had fallen in the gorge and, thus,

petitioners are not responsible for the injuries received by

Madan Lal and/or his death. It is also submitted that there is

no past inimical history of the petitioners and one of them is

only 19 years old and, therefore, considering the entire facts

and circumstances, petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

It is further submitted that earlier case was registered under

Section 307 IPC but it has been converted into Section 302 IPC

lateron by fabrication of accusation for committing murder of

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...8...

Madan Lal and that the petitioners are suffering incarceration

since last about one year for the false accusation. Learned

.

counsel have further submitted that even if, for argument

sake, it is presumed, but not admitted, that deceased Madan

Lal was thrown by the petitioners in the gorge, then also

petitioners were not having intention to kill and, therefore,

ingredient for charging the petitioners under Section 302 IPC

is missing.

10.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit

that prosecution is completely silent about intoxication of

deceased which, in fact, is real cause of his death, as he had

fallen down himself being highly intoxicated.

11. Mr. Gautam Sood, learned counsel for petitioner

Mohammad Farhan (CRMPM No.1453/2020) has taken an

additional ground for enlargement of said petitioner on bail,

for medical reasons. He has further submitted that the said

petitioner is still under treatment and has undergone MRI test

and, therefore, for treatment, he deserves to be enlarged on

bail.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon

judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Rajasthan v.

Balchand, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2447, have canvassed that

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...9...

the basic rule is bail but not jail, except where there are

circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting

.

the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of

repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by

the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred

to Gudikanti Narasimhulu & others v. Public Prosecutor, High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240,

wherein it is observed that the significance and sweep of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India make the deprivation of

liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when

the law authorizing it is reasonable and even-handed and

geared to the goals of community good and State necessity

spelt out in Article 19, Court must deal with contrary factors to

answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for

securing the presence of the bail applicant, and that public

justice is central to whole scheme of bail law and where

fleeing justice must be forbidden, there punitive harshness

should also be minimized.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also

relied upon Sanjay Chandra . Central Bureau of Investigation,

reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, wherein in a case it has been

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...10...

observed that where there is delay in trial, bail should be

granted to the accused and right to bail is not to be denied

.

merely because sentiments of community are against the

accused as primary purposes of bail in criminal cases are to

relieve the accused of imprisonment to relieve the State of

burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same

time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the

Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that

accused will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in

attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.

Further that when the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail

custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution

of India is violated.

15. Relying upon pronouncement of the Supreme

Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another,

(2018) 3 SCC 22, it has been canvassed that a fundamental

postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of

innocence, unless a reverse onus has been placed on the

accused with regard to some specific offences and the grant

of bail is a general rule and putting a person in jail or in a

prison or in correction home is an exception.

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...11...

16. Reliance has also been placed on State of Orissa v.

Mahimananda Mishra, (2018) 10 SCC 516; and P. Chidambaram

.

v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2019 SC 5272.

17. Learned Deputy Advocate General, in response to

the plea of the petitioners, has submitted that the plea of the

petitioners that the case has been fabricated to implicate the

petitioners is wrong as evident from the call recording of

conversation between one of the accused and Police Control

Room wherein petitioners had threatened to kill deceased

Madan Lal by throwing him in gorge and CCTV footage of

Petrol Pump is also substantiating the prosecution story and,

therefore, plea taken on behalf of the petitioners that they

have been falsely implicated in the case is not of worth. It has

further been submitted that initially FIR was registered under

Section 307 IPC as victim was alive at that time and it was

rightly converted into Section 302 IPC after his death. He has

also submitted that so far as intention to kill or knowledge of

death by throwing the deceased in the gorge is concerned,

the same is very much apparent in the talks of petitioners

with Police Control room wherein they have expressed their

intention to kill the deceased by throwing him.

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...12...

18. This Court in State of Sandeep v. State of Himachal

Pradesh, reported in 2019(1) Shim.LC 263, has enumerated

.

the principles evolved in various pronouncements of the

Supreme Court (Para-13) and the factors to be kept in mind at

the time of consideration of bail applications (Para-14), which

are as under:

Principles (Para-13)

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)

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

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...13...

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)

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

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...14...

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)

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

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...15...

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

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

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...16...

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 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)

Factors (Para-14)

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;

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...17...

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;

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...18...

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

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...19...

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, (2019) 10 SCC 516".

19. In Balchand's case, the Apex Court has not only

stated that basic rule is bail not jail but has also clarified that

the gravity of the offence and heinousness of the crime

involved must weigh with Courts at the time of considering

the question of bail or jail.

20. In Gudikanti's case, petitioners had been acquitted

in the trial Court but their acquittal had been set aside in the

High Court and in those circumstances question of granting

bail to the petitioners was under consideration of the Court

and in that case petitioners had already suffered

imprisonment for around a year and at conclusion of trial they

had been acquitted and during trial as well as pendency of

appeal in the Court they were on bail. Therefore, in the given

facts and circumstances of the case this judgment is not

applicable in the present case.

21. In Sanjay Chandra's case, the offence involved was

an economic offence and it has also been observed therein

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...20...

that the grant or refusal of bail lies within the discretion of the

Court and it is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and

.

circumstances of each particular case. Not only this, the

factors and principles, referred by this Court in Sandeep's

case supra, have also been reproduced by the Supreme Court,

by referring various pronouncements and most of them have

also been taken into consideration in Sandeep's case.

22.

In Dataram's case also, it has been observed that

exercise of judicial discretion of the judge, considering a case

for grant or denial of bail, has been circumscribed by a large

number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and by

every High Court in the country. Almost all such decisions

have been taken into consideration, as referred supra, which

postulates that it is not verdict of the Supreme Court that bail

is to be granted in each and every case, irrespective of nature

of offence and ignoring heinousness of crime committed by

the accused.

23. Pronouncement of Supreme Court in Mahimananda

Mishra's case has already been taken into consideration in

Sandeep's case and it is apt to record here that in that case

order of the High Court, granting bail to the accused, was

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...21...

reversed and accused therein was ordered to be taken in

custody.

.

24. The principles evolved and facts to be taken into

consideration at the time of considering bail application,

reiterated in Chidambaram's case, on the basis of previous

pronouncements of the Supreme Court, have already been

taken into consideration in Sandeep's case and therein also, it

has been observed that nature and heinousness of offence

and the quality of evidence as well as social impact are also

relevant factors to be considered at the time of granting or

refusing bail.

25. In response to plea taken in favour of Mohammad

Faik, regarding his ailment, information from Superintendent

of Model Central Jail, Nahan, based on the information of

Medical Officer, Model Central Jail, Nahan, has been placed on

record, wherein it is stated that Mohammad Faik is suffering

from seizure disorder and is under treatment from Neuro-

Surgery Department of Indira Gandhi Medical College &

Hospital, Shimla (IGMC) and on 17.3.2020 he was sent to

IGMC for MRI of brain and on 11.8.2020 for follow-up and was

not admitted there. MRI report and other treatment record

have also been placed on record, which indicate that MRI of

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...22...

brain of petitioner Mohammad Faik was also conducted in

Delhi on 15.12.2014 and now it has been conducted in IGMC

.

and nothing has been suggested by the Medical Expert so as

to construe that in Jail disease of the petitioner has

aggravated and/or there is no treatment available for his

disease in the Jail or he is not being provided medial aid/

treatment as required for curing his ailment. Facts and

circumstances of the case and material on record before me is

not sufficient to consider the case of petitioner Mohammad

Faik for his release on bail on medical ground.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have

submitted that petitioners are ready to furnish local surety

and they also undertake to abide by any condition imposed by

the Court in case they are enlarged on bail.

27. Without commenting on the merits of the material

placed before me, I am of the considered opinion that there is

sufficient material on record to construe prima facie

involvement of petitioners in commission of offence and it is

not a case where ex-facie no case is made out for implicating

the petitioners in commission of murder of deceased Madan

Lal. Though evidence is to be assessed and evaluated by the

trial Court during trial, however, keeping in view the nature

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...23...

and gravity of the offence and heinousness of the crime and

also the manner in which offence has been alleged to have

.

been committed, I find that at this stage petitioners, except

petitioner Muzammil Hussain son of Akthar Hussain (CRMPM

No.1455/2020), are not entitled for bail.

28. Hence, the petitions qua all the petitioners, except

Muzammil Hussain son of Akthar Hussain (CRMPM

No.1455/2020), are dismissed.

29. So far as petitioner Muzammil Hussain son of

Akthar Hussain (CRMPM No.1455/2020) is concerned, he is 19

years old and though has attained majority but is still in his

teens and, thus, to avoid adverse impact on his mind and

giving him a chance to introspect and reform, I am of the

opinion that he may be enlarged on bail at this stage.

30. Accordingly, petitioner Muzammil Hussain son of

Akthar Hussain (CRMPM No.1455/2020) is ordered to be

released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

`50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, one of

which, as undertaken by him, should be a local surety, to the

satisfaction of the trial Court, within two weeks from today,

and also subject to the following conditions:

(i) That petitioner-Muzammil Hussain son of Akthar Hussain (CRMPM No.1455/2020) shall

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...24...

make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

.

(ii) that he 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. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

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

                 (iv)    that he shall not commit the offence similar to
                         the offence to which he is accused or
                    r    suspected;

                 (v)     that he shall not misuse his liberty in any
                         manner;

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

(vii) that he shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) he shall not leave India without permission of

the Court.

31. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for

imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other

condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts

and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It

shall also be open for the trial Court to impose any other

condition, as deemed necessary, upon the petitioner,

independent of prayer of prosecution.

CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020

...25...

32. In case the petitioner violates any conditions

imposed upon him, his 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.

33. 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.

34.

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 application.

35. The petitioner is 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 petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

Copy dasti.

                                           ( Vivek Singh Thakur )
    January 6, 2021(sd)                              Judge.