Lodged In Sub Jail Solan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5175 HP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                   ON THE 1st DAY JULY, 2022




                                                    .
                           BEFORE





       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

    CRIMINAL MISC. PETITIONS (MAIN) No. 1275 & 1276 of 2022





    Between:­
    Cr.MP(M) No. 1275 of 2022:
    RAJESH SON OF LATE SH. ROOP
    RAM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,





    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRATHA
    KALAN, PO HARIPUR, TEHSIL
    AND DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.,
    PRESENTLY UNDER TRIAL AND

    LODGED IN SUB JAIL SOLAN,

    DISTICT SOLAN, H.P.

                                                    ......PETITIONER


    (BY  MR.     H.R.   JHINGTA,
    ADVOCATE.)

    AND




    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.





                                                  ......RESPONDENT
    Cr.MP(M) No. 1276 of 2022:





    MAHENDER SON OF SH. JAGAT
    RAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRATHA
    KHURD PO HARIPUR, TEHSIL
    AND DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.,
    PRESENTLY UNDER TRIAL AND
    LODGED IN SUB JAIL SOLAN,
    DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.

                                                    ......PETITIONER




                                   ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2022 20:06:54 :::CIS
                                                    2




    (BY  MR.                H.R.         JHINGTA,
    ADVOCATE.)




                                                                           .
    AND





    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.





                                                                         ......RESPONDENT
    (BY MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
    ADDITIONAL        ADVOCATE
    GENERAL,      WITH     M/S.
    BHUPENDER      THAKUR    &





    YUDHVIR    SINGH   THAKUR,
    DEPUTY           ADVOCATES
    GENERAL.)          r
    1
        WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?                                  Yes.

    This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
                                            ORDER

The instant bail applications have been maintained by

the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for grant of bail, in case FIR No. 124 of 2020, dated

25.10.2020, under Sections 302, 323 and 324 IPC read with

Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District

Solan, H.P.

2. As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have

been falsely implicated in the present case. They are neither in a

position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position

to flee from justice, as they are permanent residents of the place,

so they he may be released on bail.

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

3. At the very outset it would be profitable to mention

here that by filing the instant petitions, the petitioners herein have

approached this Court second time seeking their bail.

.

4. Police report stands filed. Tersely the facts of the case

are that on 24.10.2020, on being informed, police rushed to CHC,

Kunihar, where statement of Shri Kuldeep Kumar (complainant)

was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant stated

that on 22.10.2020, at about 07:30 p.m., he was with his friends,

i.e., Naresh, Lucky and Dalip at Haripur School ground and they

were going, on foot to a marriage a ceremony. A car, having

registration No. HP64A 1063, stopped and the petitioners and

Meena Ram (co­accused) alighted. Co­accused asked them,

whether they use narcotics and when Naresh refused, he slapped

Naresh and threatened them. On 24.10.2020, at about 06/06:15

p.m., when the complainant was returning to his home from the

home of his uncle, namely Shriram, petitioners and co­accused

were taking liquor, so he returned and narrated the incident to his

uncle and telephoned Naresh. Thereafter, the complainant, his

uncle Shriram, Dalip, Naresh and Harish went to the spot, where

the petitioner and co­accused were taking liquor and asked them

that they portray themselves from police and openly taking liquor.

In the interregnum, after hearing the noise, uncle of the

complainant, namely Sukhdev (the deceased), came on the spot, to

whom it was informed that on 22.10.2020 Naresh was slapped

without any reason. Therefore, the deceased started inquiring the

petitioners and co­accused as to why Naresh was slapped, so an

.

altercation ensued. Co­accused brought a knife from the vehicle

and stabbed the deceased twice in his stomach. When the

complainant and his uncle Shriram tried to rescue the deceased,

co­accused stabbed Shriram in his stomach and caused knife

injuries on the person of the complainant. Thereafter, the

deceased and Shriram were immediately taken to nearby hospital,

however, during the course of treatment the deceased succumbed

to his injuries and injured Shriram was referred to IGMC, Shimla.

Upon the statement, so made by the complainant, police

machinery was set into motion. Police registered a case under the

apt Sections of IPC and the investigation commenced. Police

visited the spot of occurrence, collected scientific evidence,

recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot

map. The petitioners and co­accused were arrested and medically

examined. Police recovered a blood stained knife and also made

relevant recoveries from the spot of occurrence. During the course

of investigation, co­accused and the petitioners divulged that knife

was issued by CID, Shimla, as they were sent to the area for

getting clue regarding narcotics. They also divulged that on

22.10.2020 they had an altercation with three boys, when they

inquired about the narcotics. SFSL team also visited the spot of

occurrence from where samples were lifted and the spot was

photographed. Police seized the vehicle, which was allegedly used

.

in commission of the crime, alongwith its documents and key.

Medico Legal Certificates of the petitioners and that of the co­

accused reveal that on the day of occurrence they consumed

liquor. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the

petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were also actively

involved in the alleged crime. In case the petitioners, at this stage,

are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that they may flee

from justice or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. There is

anger in the society against the petitioners, so enlarging the

petitioners on bail at this stage may put their lives in danger. In

the above backdrop, it is prayed that the instant bail petitions may

be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and

gone through the records, carefully.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that

the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the

instant case. He has further argued that the petitioners were not

at all involved in the alleged offence, as it was co­accused Mani

Ram who gave fatal blows of the knife to the deceased. The

petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution

evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as they are

permanent residents of District Solan, H.P. He has argued that no

.

fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind

the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is

complete, challan stands presneted in the learned Trial Court,

nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners

and considering the story of the prosecution, which clearly

demonstrates that it was co­accused Mani Ram, who allegedly

stabbed the deceased and caused injuries on the persons of the

complainant and one Shriram. He has argued that the petitioners

cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially

when investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the

learned Trial Court and the custody of the petitioners is not at all

required, so the bail applications may be allowed and the

petitioners be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional

Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed

heinous crime and the petitioners were actively involved in the

commission of the crime. He has further argued that in case the

petitioners, at this stage, are enlarged on bail they may tamper

with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice and there is

anger in the society, so enlarging the petitioners on bail, at this

stage, may put their lives in peril. Lastly, it is prayed that in the

above backdrop, the instant petitions may be dismissed.

6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has

argued that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last more

.

than one and half years and cannot be kept behind the bars for an

unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete,

challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, nothing

remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners,

considering the fact that as per the prosecution story, it was co­

accused Mani Ram, who stabbed the deceased and caused injuries

on the persons of the complainant and Shriram and the fact that

the petitioners only had passive role in the commission of crime.

He has argued that considering the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, the bail petitions may be allowed and

the petitioners be enlarged on bail.

7. Admittedly, by way of the instant petitions, the

petitioners have approached this Court second time, earlier their

bail petitions were dismissed. Now, the petitioners have to make­

out a case of change in the circumstances and change must be

substantial change, but in the instant case, at this stage, there is

no change in the circumstances, as only investigation has been

completed and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court.

These changes are only miniature in nature and do make­out a

case of substantial change in the circumstances.

8. While arguing the learned counsel for the petitioners

has invited the attention of this Court to certain judicial

pronouncements, wherein the bail petitioner(s) was (were) granted

.

bail, but considering the facts and circumstances of the instant

case, the judicial pronouncements, as highlighted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the instant

petitions.

9. At this stage, considering the gravity and heinousness

of the alleged offence, prima facie involvement of the petitioners in

the alleged office, the fact that the petitioners and the co­accused

had an altercation and scuffle with the complainant and other

boys, the fact that on the day of occurrence the petitioners and co­

accused were taking liquor and when they were asked about their

earlier conduct, quarrel took place, considering the fact that as per

the medical evidence, the deceased died due to stab injuries,

considering the recovery of blood stained knife from the spot of

occurrence and also considering the facts that in case the

petitioners are enlarged on bail, at this stage, they may tamper

with the prosecution evidence or flee from the justice, considering

the fact that there is no substantial change in the circumstances

and also considering all other vital aspects, which emerge, and

without discussing the same elaborately at this stage, this Court is

of the opinion that the present are not a fit cases where the judicial

discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be

exercised in their favour.

10. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petitions,

.

being devoid of merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly

dismissed.

11. Needless to say that the observations made

hereinabove are only confined for the adjudication of the instant

petitions and shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of

the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.

                                  ( Chander Bhusan Barowalia )
     st
    1 July, 2022                         Judge
          (virender)