Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sushil Kumar @ Sheela vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 21 December, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP (M) No.2919 of 2023
Reserved on : 18th December, 2023
Decided on : 21st December, 2023
Sushil Kumar @ Sheela ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional
Advocate General with Ms. Leena
Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral).
ApplicantSushil Kumar @ Sheela, has filed the
present application, under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC'),
with a prayer to release him on bail, in case FIR No.254 of
2019, dated 28.10.2019, registered under Sections 302 &
201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the
'IPC'), with Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. According to the applicant, he is innocent
person and has falsely been implicated and arrested, in the
present case.
3. According to the applicant, investigation, in the
present case, is complete and the police has filed the final
report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, before learned
Additional Sessions Judge Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.
4. As per the applicant, out of total 44 witnesses,
only 16 witnesses have been examined. There is inordinate
delay in conclusion of the trial.
5. Applicant has also asserted that he is having
deep roots in the society and is ready to abide by, any
conditions, imposed by this Court, in case released on bail.
6. Since, the applicant is seeking the relief mainly
on the ground of delay in trial, as such, in support of his
contentions, the applicant has placed on record the
attested copies of the zimini orders, passed by the learned
trial Court from 21.3.2020 till 23.11.2023.
7. Apart from this, learned counsel appearing for
the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of
the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by,
in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the
pendency of the trial.
8. Applicant has also tried his luck before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District
Kangra, H.P., by moving Bail Application No.171
XXIII/2023. However, the said bail application has been
dismissed, vide order, dated 26th August, 2023.
9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to allow the application.
10. When put to notice, the police has filed
the status report disclosing therein, that on 28.10.2019,
Inspector Mohan Lal, Incharge Police Station, Nurpur has
forwarded the statement of Sunita Kumari, wife of Shri
Kuldeep Kumar alias Deepa, Resident of Village & Post
Office Dhaneti Bhurian, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra,
HP, recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C., for registration of
FIR.
10.1. In the statement, the complainant got recorded
that she was married with Kuldeep Singh alias Deepa,
about 28 years ago, as per Hindu rites and rituals. She is
having four children i.e. three daughters and one son.
Besides agriculture, her husband used to do labour work.
10.2. On 27.10.2019, at about 7.30 a.m., her
husband Kuldeep Kumar told her that he has to go to
Dhaneti because of Deepawali festival. In the evening, at
about 6.00 p.m., when her husband did not return, she
went in search of her husband and came to know from her
brotherinlaw (Jeth) that the dead body of her husband
was lying at a higher place (Dhussi) near the Sounsh Khad,
upon which, she, along with her son Rashpal Singh,
reached there.
10.3. At about 6.30 p.m., she noticed the dead body
of her husband lying near the Sounsh Khad. The body was
blood stained. When, the complainant called her husband,
then he found to be dead. Deep injuries, were there on the
forehead of the deceased and blood was there on his face.
Near to that place, two blood stained stones were also
lying. Blood was also there on the soil and grass etc.
10.4. Thereafter, the son of complainant, Rashpal has
called her nephew Manish Kumar on phone. The
complainant has also called Ex. UpPradhan Rajinder
Singh and Ex. Pradhan Lekh Raj Sharma on the spot.
Brotherinlaw (Jeth) of the complainant Dhian Singh, also
reached there.
10.5. Complainant also came to know that on
27.10.2019, in the day time, some of the villagers, under
the influence of liquor, were gambling at the aforesaid
place and her husband was also present there.
10.6. Complainant further stated that her brotherin
law (Jeth) Dhian Singh disclosed to her that when, he was
coming towards this side, then, on the way, near the Pump
House, he noticed, Sushil Kumar @ Sheela (applicant), who
was under the influence of liquor. When, Dhian Singh
inquired him about that as to whether he has seen
Kuldeep Kumar, then he went ahead, without answering to
him.
10.7. As per the revelation, in the statement, under
Section 154 Cr.PC, earlier also, applicant had quarreled
with her husband and beaten him, but, they did not make
any report about this fact. According to the complainant,
the applicant was having grudges with her husband.
10.8. According to the complainant, applicant was
last seen, on the spot, and she was sure that Susuil Kumar
(applicant) has killed her husband with stone blows.
11. On the basis of the above facts, the police
registered FIR, in question, the the police machinery swung
into motion. Spot map was prepared.
12. During investigation, it has been found that on
the spot, prior to the incident, some persons, namely,
Kumar, Yabbu, Gaddu, Billa, Labba, Rakshpal, Prakash
Chand, Kewal Singh and Inder Singh, were also there, who
were gambling. They were interrogated and statements of
the witnesses, under Section 161 Cr. P.C., were recorded.
13. On 28.10.2019, the team of RFSL has visited
the spot and collected the physical evidence. During
investigation, the accused has produced the clothes worn
by him, at the time of occurrence, which were taken into
possession by the police. According to the Police, the same
were washed by him, after the occurrence.
14. Since, the applicant has destroyed the evidence,
as such, provisions of Section 201 IPC, were also added, in
this case.
15. The dead body of the deceased was taken to CH
Nurpur for postmortem examination. Since, there was no
Forensic Expert in Civil Hospital, Nurpur, as such, the
Medical Officer, after inspecting the dead body of the
deceased, referred the same to RPGMC Tanda for
conducting the postmortem examination. Accused
(applicant) was arrested on 28.10.2019.
16. As per the police, according to the evidence
collected, on the spot, as well as, from the inquiry from the
local people, it was found that accused (applicant) was
found near the spot, on 27.10.2019. After postmortem
examination, the doctor has opined, as under:
"Cause of death in this case is head injury
associated with injury No.1 individually
and injuries No. 2 & 3 collectively sufficient
to cause death in an ordinary course of
nature, these injuries are caused by blunt
force impact. As per the RFSL Report
no.2118 (A) RFSL (chem.) (1743) facts
307.96 mg% in blood of 342.13%, in urine
ethyl alcohal detected in deceased body
and deceased was intoxicated at the time
of incident."
17. After completion of the investigation, the police
has filed the final report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC.,
against the applicant, before the learned trial Court.
18. As stated above, the applicant has placed on
record the zimini orders from 21.3.2020 till 23.11.2023.
19. Charges, in this case, were framed, on
15.11.2021 and thereafter, the case was adjourned for
17.12.2021, for summoning the witnesses, on which date,
learned trial Court has summoned only three witnesses,
which is in violation of Section 309 Cr.PC.
20. As per the stand taken by the police, in the
status report, out of 44 witnesses, only 14 witnesses have
been examined.
21. In the status report, no apprehension has been
expressed, by the police, against the applicant, that in
case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be
available for the trial or he may coerce the witnesses.
22. Perusal of the zimini orders also shows that the
trial has been deferred time and again for want of
prosecution witnesses.
23. Considering the number of witnesses, this
Court is of the view that in near future, the chances of
conclusion of the trial are not so bright. The accused is in
custody for the last more than four years.
24. Apart from this, no other criminal history has
been mentioned or argued by learned Additional Advocate
General.
25. In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and others versus R.S.
Nayak and another, reported in (1992) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 225, Raj Deo Sharma versus State of
Bihar, reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 507,
Dharmendra Kirthal versus State of Uttar Pradesh
and another, reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases
368, Hussain and another versus Union of India,
reported in (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 702 and
Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3
Supreme Court Cases 713, the speedy trial has been
held to be the right of the accused, which flows from Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Perusal of the zimini orders
also showsj that the delay was not on the part of the
applicant.
25. Considering all these facts, this Court is
of the view that the application is liable to be allowed
and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be
released on bail in case FIR No.254 of 2019, dated
28.10.2019, under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC,
registered with Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra,
H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/, with one surety in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur,
District Kangra, H.P.
26. This order of release, however, shall be subject
to the following conditions :
"a) He shall make himself 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) He shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence nor hamper the investigation of
the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) He shall not make any inducement,
threat or promises to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade them from disclosing
such facts to the Court or the Police
Office; and
d) He shall not leave the territory of India
without the prior permission of the Court."
27. Any of the observations made herein above shall
not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of
the case as these observations are confined only to the
disposal of the present bail application.
28. It is made clear that the respondentState is at
liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of
the bail conditions is found to be violated by the applicant.
29. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of
the bail order to the Superintendent Jail, SubJail, Nurpur,
District Kangra, through email, with a direction to enter
the date of grant of bail in the eprison software.
30. In case, the applicant is not released within a
period of seven days from the date of grant of bail,
the Superintendent Jail, SubJail, Nurpur, District Kangra,
is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA,
Kangra. The Superintendent Jail, SubJail, Nurpur,
District Kangra, is further directed that, if the applicant
fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by
this Court, within a period of one month from today, then,
the said fact be submitted to this Court.
( Virender Singh )
December 21, 2023(ps) Judge
