Sachin Chaudhary vs State Of H.P
2023 Latest Caselaw 5829 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

.

Cr.MP(M) No.631 of 2023

Reserved on: 10.5.2023 Date of decision: 15.5.2023.

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

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional

Advocates General.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has

prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case

FIR No. 21 of 2022 dated 8.2.2022, registered at Police

Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 302,

201, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. On 8.2.2022, a telephonic information was

received at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P.

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

that two brothers namely Vijender @ Pepsi and Suraj had a

fight. Police visited the spot and recorded statement of Sh.

.

Jasbir under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the

complainant was a retired Assistant Engineer from

Electricity Department. The house of Nimi Devi was in

front of his house. Nimi Devi had two sons from two

Vijender @ Pepsi.

r to different marriages and their names were Suraj Kumar and

Nimi Devi with her two sons was

residing there. During the intervening night of 7th and 8th

February, 2022 at about 12.30 a.m. complainant was

sleeping in his house. He heard commotion from the

house of Nimi Devi. He went out and noticed that Vijender

@ Pepsi and Sachin Chaudhary (petitioner) were inflicting

flows on Suraj Kumar and were abusing him. Vijender @

Pepsi and petitioner were habitual of raising fights in

routine. Both of them i.e. Vijender @ Pepsi and petitioner

caused injuries on the person of Suraj Kumar by

repeatedly striking him against metalled road. Blood had

started flowing on the road. In the meanwhile, Nimi Devi

came out and asked Vijender @ Pepsi and petitioner to

leave Suraj Kumar, as he was dead. Both the accused

persons pushed Nimi and stated that Suraj Kumar was not

.

dead as yet. During this period, Vijender @ Pepsi called

someone on phone and was heard saying "that you called

yourself paternal aunt of Suraj and you use to caution

Suraj that he should not come before us because we will

on the road".

r to kill him and today we have killed him and his body is lying

Thereafter, both the accused persons

dumped the body of Suraj in the vehicle and removed from

the place of occurrence. Later when Vijender @ Pepsi came

back with vehicle. Complainant asked him as to whether

Suraj had grievous injuries, accused Vijender @ Pepsi did

not reply and simply pointed out towards the vehicle and

the body was lying therein.

3. During investigation, the police has collected

evidence against Vijender @ Pepsi and petitioner. The

statement of the complainant is stated to have

corroborated by scientific evidence. Injuries were also

found on the hands, specially knuckles of the accused

persons. Their blood stained cloths were recovered. It is

further alleged against the accused persons that when they

had taken the injured Suraj to hospital, they had given

.

false version that the injuries were suffered by Suraj in

accident.

4. The cause of death of Suraj has been opined due

to shock on account of multiple injuries sustained by him.

urine of Suraj.

r to A huge amount of ethyl alcohol was found in the blood and

5. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in the

above noted case on the ground that he is innocent and

has not committed any crime. It is further submitted that

the story alleged by the prosecution is a concocted version

and the real genesis has been suppressed. It is contended

that the deceased Suraj was drunk, during intervening

night of 7th and 8th February, 2022. He was arrested by

the police under Section 114 of the Police Act and was later

handed over to his brother accused Vijender @ Pepsi and

the petitioner was a witness to said handing over.

6. As per petitioner, he has no criminal history.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

the given facts of the case did not suggest any pre-

meditation or intention on part of petitioner to cause the

.

death of deceased Suraj. Petitioner is stated to be

permanent resident of VPO Ghurkari, Tehsil and District

Kangra, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding

or fleeing from the course of justice.

7.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate

General has opposed the prayer made in the petition. It is

submitted that the petitioner is accused of a very serious

and heinous crime. Accusations against him are serious

and grave. Petitioner and his co-accused have acted in a

cruel manner. The trial of the case is yet to begin and

material witnesses are to be examined. In case of release

of petitioner on bail, there is every likelihood that the

prosecution witnesses may be wonover under threat,

coercion or any other means. It is further stated that

petitioner is involved in another case registered at Police

Station, Kangra, vide FIR No. 216 of 2017 dated 11.8.2017

under Sections 147, 149, 354, 506, 509 read with Section

34 of IPC.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also gone through the record carefully.

.

9. At the stage of adjudication of plea of bail, the

nature of accusation and the evidence collected in support

thereof become relevant factors, especially when the

offence alleged to have been committed may entail capital

punishment.

10. to In the given facts of the case, undoubtedly, the

allegations against petitioner are of commission of offence

of murder. There is eye witness to the crime, who has

categorically stated in his statement under Section 154

Cr.P.C. that the deceased was repeatedly struck against

metalled road by petitioner and his co-accused and blood

had started flowing on the road. Further the police has

also collected the evidence that the deceased was drunk at

the time of incident. The scientific evidence collected

during investigation also implicates the petitioner. Thus, it

is a case where prima-facie sufficient evidence has been

collected to implicate the petitioner.

11. Another concern of this Court at this stage is the

conclusion of fair trial. Material witnesses are yet to be

.

examined more particularly the eye witness to the incident.

Since the petitioner is accused of a very serious and

heinous offence, the possibility of his attempting to winover

material witnesses of the prosecution cannot be ruled out.

The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that there

was no pre-mediation to cause death of deceased Suraj

also will not help the cause of petitioner for the reasons

that the petitioner and his co-accused were seen striking

the deceased against metalled road repeatedly. The proof

of requisite intent or knowledge as required for proving the

guilt of petitioner will be subject to trial. In the facts

noticed above, it cannot be said that the requisite intent or

knowledge was completely missing.

12. Even otherwise, the conduct of petitioner and

his co-accused after inflicting injuries upon deceased Suraj

is a factor which needs to be considered for the purpose of

adjudication of instant petition. Petitioner and his co-

accused had taken the injured Suraj to RPMGC Hospital,

Tanda and had not disclosed the true factual position.

They had given a wrong history of roadside accident as

.

reason for injuries suffered by deceased Suraj. The injured

was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and without reporting the

matter to the police, he was being taken to Chandigarh and

on the way, he breathed his last.

13.

Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and

circumstances, the petitioner is not held entitled to bail at

this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

14. Any observation made herein above shall not be

taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case

and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by

any observation made herein above.

    15th May 2023                            (Satyen Vaidya)
        (kck)                                        Judge