Baldev Alias Bablu vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4257 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

ON THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

BEFORE

.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION(MAIN) NOS. 1640-42 OF 2021

Between:-

1. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION(MAIN) NO. 1640 OF 2021

BALDEV ALIAS BABLU SON OF SHRI JALAM RAM,

R/O VILLAGE DEDUI, P.O. DHARMOUR, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

... PETITIONER

(BY MR. NARESH KUMAR TOMAR AND MR. ANIL KUMAR MANGET,

ADVOCATES)

AND

STATE OF H.P.

.. RESPONDENT (MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL

WITH MR. R.P. SINGH, MR. KAMAL KISHORE AND MR. NARINDER THAKUR,

DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL)

2. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION(MAIN) NO. 1641 OF 2021

NIRMALA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHRI GYAN CHAND, R/O VILLAGE TIKKRI, POST OFFICE CHURAG, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

... PETITIONER (BY MR. NARESH KUMAR TOMAR AND MR. ANIL KUMAR MANGET, ADVOCATES)

AND

STATE OF H.P.

.. RESPONDENT (MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR

.

AND MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL

WITH MR. R.P. SINGH, MR. KAMAL KISHORE AND MR. NARINDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL)

3. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION(MAIN) NO. 1642 OF 2021

SHANTI DEVI WIFEOF SHRI JALAM RAM,

R/O VILLAGE DEDUI, P.O. DHARMOUR, TEHSIL KARSOG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

... PETITIONER

(BY MR. NARESH KUMAR TOMAR AND MR. ANIL KUMAR MANGET,

ADVOCATES)

AND

STATE OF H.P.

.. RESPONDENT (MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL

WITH MR. R.P. SINGH, MR. KAMAL KISHORE AND MR. NARINDER THAKUR,

DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL)

These petitions coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

OR D ER

Since all these bail petitions arise out of same FIR, same

were taken up together and are being disposed of vide this common

judgment.

2. Sequel to order dated 25.8.2021, whereby petitioners were

ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in FIR No. 97

dated 26.7.2021 under Ss.306, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Karsog,

District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, respondent-State has filed status report.

HC Dina Nath, Investigating Officer, Police Station Karsog, Mandi,

.

Himachal Pradesh, has also come present with record. Record perused

and returned.

3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General,

while fairly admitting the factum with regard to joining of investigation by

the petitioners herein pursuant to order dated 25.8.2021, submits that

though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners but

keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by

the bail petitioners, they do not deserve leniency and their prayer for bail

deserves outright rejection. While referring to the status report /record, Mr.

Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently contends that

it is quite apparent from the evidence collected on record by Investigating

Agency, especially the suicide note, recovered from the pocket of the

deceased that the deceased Gian Chand, committed suicide on account of

harassment and mental torture caused to him by the petitioners herein and

as such, prayer made on behalf of petitioners may be rejected outrightly.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

material available on record this court finds that on 26.7.2021, Dinesh

Kumar, who happens to son of deceased Gian Chand, lodged a complaint

at Police Station Karsog, Mandi, alleging therein that the relations inter se

his father and mother were not very cordial and his mother i.e. Krishana

alias Nirmala used to give him beatings. He alleged that one month back,

his mother i.e. present bail petitioner had given blow of serving spoon

(Kadchhi) on the head of his father, but yet he did not lodge any complaint.

He alleged that ten days back his mother with his younger sister went to

his Nani's house at Dharmour Devli. On 25.7.2021, while he alongwith his

.

grandmother and cousin was in the house, his father came to house at 10

pm under the influence of liquor. Complainant disclosed that his father

after taking dinner, gave his purse to him and himself went towards house

of Surat Ram. At around 5.30 am in the morning he found that his father

had hanged himself in the fields of Brij Lal. He further alleged that he

checked purse of his father and found one suicide note, wherein he had

stated that cause of his death are present bail petitioners, who allegedly

blackmailed him. On the basis of statement made by the complainant, FIR

came to be lodged against the persons named in the suicide note under

S.306 IPC.

5. It is quite apparent from the status report and record that the

relations inter se Krishna Devi, wife of deceased Gian Chand and

deceased Gian chand, were strained on account of alleged extra marital

relationship of deceased Gian Chand with a person namely Kirna and

allegedly on this account, in-laws of deceased threatened him on many

occasions. It is not in dispute that at the time of alleged incident, wife of

deceased was not at home, rather ten days prior to incident, she had gone

to her maternal house. It is also not in dispute that at the time of alleged

incident, deceased was under the influence of liquor, as stated by

complainant, while recording his statement under S.154 CrPC.Though in

the suicide note allegedly recovered from purse of the deceased, bail

petitioners named herein above have been held responsible for his death,

but there is no material worth credence available on record that all the

petitioners named in the suicide note had been troubling the deceased

constantly. No doubt relations between Krishna alias Nirmala and the

.

deceased were not cordial but that may not be the only cause for the

deceased to commit suicide. No evidence worth credence has been

collected on record suggestive of the fact that in the past also, petitioners

herein had been constantly torturing the deceased Gian Chand and he

being under pressure, committed suicide. Not even a single neighbourer

has stated before the investigating agency that the deceased was upset

on account of maltreatment, if any, meted to him at the hands of his wife

Krishana alias Nirmala and other persons named in the FIR, rather this

court finds from the record that the bail petitioner Krishana alias Nirmala

was not happy in the company of the deceased on account of his extra-

marital relationship with person namely Kirna and as such, it is difficult to

conclude at this stage, that the bail petitioner Krishana alias Nirmala

alongwith other family members as named in the FIR instigated the

deceased Gian Chand to commit suicide.

6. Though case at hand is to be considered and dealt with by

learned court below in the totality of evidence to be collected by the

Investigating Agency but keeping in view aforesaid glaring aspects of

mater, this court sees no reason for the custodial interrogation of

petitioners, who otherwise have joined the investigation. Apprehension

expressed by of learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of

the bail petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice, can

be best met by putting the bail petitioners to stringent conditions..

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,

Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018

has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite

.

period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is

believed to be innocent until found guilty.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central

Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that

gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing

factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its

discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that

object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial

by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor

preventative.

9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC

218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure

the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied

in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is

whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise

also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep

in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof,

severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the

accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that

crime.

10. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis

Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various

principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima

.

facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved,

apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

11. In view of above, bail petitioners have carved out a case for

themselves, as such, present petitions are allowed. Orders dated

25.8.2021 are made absolute, subject to the bail petitioners furnishing

fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one local surety in the

like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, besides the

following conditions:

(a) They shall make themselves available for the purpose of

interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing

appropriate application;

(b) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor

hamper the investigation of the case in any manner

whatsoever;

(c) They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

12. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate

any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall

be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

.

13. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to

be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the

disposal of these petitions alone.

The petitions stand accordingly disposed of.

Copy dasti.

                                                             (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                                  Judge
    September 1, 2021
         (vikrant)         r