Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: October 20 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 October, 2023
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Cr.M.P.(M) No.1735 of 2023
Date of Decision: October 20, 2023
Harjot Singh ...Petitioner.
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divya
Raj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr.Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate
General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking regular
bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), in FIR No.215 of 2020, dated 06.09.2020, registered in
Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., under Sections 302 and
323 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Status report stands filed and record was also made
available.
3. In the status report, statement of
complainant Ashwani Kumar, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C.,
has been reproduced and according to the said statement,
complainant-Ashwani Kumar is Panchayat Pradhan, who is having
land dispute with Harjot Singh (petitioner) and his family, but
correction of revenue record has not been effected yet and on
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
the disputed land, IPH Department has been constructing
irrigation water tank outlets through Contractor. On 06.09.2020,
on a call of IPH Contractor, complainant had reached the spot at
.
9.15 a.m., where Naresh Kumar (co-accused) of IPH Department
was also present alongwith Contractor, and Suresh Kumar and
Mukesh Kumar (co-accused) sons of petitioner/accused Harjot
Singh alongwith their father were also present. Complainant had
objected construction of cement tank for water outlet on the
disputed land with a request to construct the same later on, but
on this, Naresh Kumar/co-accused overpowered the complainant
and Harjot Singh (petitioner) and his sons Suresh Kumar and
Mukesh Kumar (co-accused) had started beating complainant
with wooden sticks, kicks and fist blows and at that
time, Ashwani Kumar (deceased) son of Desh Raj had tried to
intervene to stop quarrel. Whereupon, Harjot Singh
petitioner/accused had directed his son Suresh Kumar to bring
the gun to kill Ashwani Kumar son of Desh Raj by saying that the
said Ashwani Kumar was root cause of the quarrel and
thereupon, Suresh Kumar brought the gun and fired a gunshot on
the chest of Ashwani Kumar son of Desh Raj and thereafter all
accused except Suresh Kumar ran away from the spot. Injured
Ashwani Kumar had asked complainant-Ashwani Kumar to run
away from the spot as he had received bullet injury. At that time,
Suresh Kumar remained on the spot for about 10-15 minutes and
when villagers started gathering on the spot, Suresh Kumar also
ran away from the spot. Injured Ashwani Kumar was shifted by
complainant in his vehicle with the help of his sons Chetan,
Rajender and Raj Kumar to the Government Hospital for
treatment, but he had succumbed to injuries on way to the
.
hospital.
4. Lastly, it is stated that this entire plan had already
been conspired by all four accused.
5. As per status report, on the basis of statement of
complainant, FIR was registered and investigation was carried
on. Besides postmortem of deceased Ashwani Kumar,
complainantPradhan Ashwani Kumar was also subjected to
medical examination and as per final report, Medical Officer on
his MLC has opined that injuries received by complainant-
Pradhan Ashwani Kumar were simple and blunt.
6. Record was also perused.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide
order dated 13th January, 2023, passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2737 of
2022, petitioner was enlarged on interim bail by this Court for his
medical treatment and during that period, he did not abscond or
flee from justice and, therefore also, now he is entitled for
regular bail.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring the
alleged role of petitioner and the manner in which offence was
committed including the gravity thereof, has submitted that trial
is going on and petitioner is not entitled for bail.
9. Taking into consideration the alleged role of
petitioner, nature of gravity of offence and period of detention
viz-a-viz the stage of trial, I am of considered view that petitioner
is not entitled for bail at this stage. Therefore, petition is
dismissed.
.
10. 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.
Petition stands disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
October 20, 2023
(MS) r
