Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reena Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 September, 2023

Bench: Sushil Kukreja

                                                1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                     .
                                                          Cr.MP(M) No.1869 of 2023





                                    Date of Decision: 06.09.2023
       _________________________________________________





       Reena Kumari
                                                    ....Petitioner
                             Versus
       State of Himachal Pradesh
                                                   ...Respondent




       _________________________________________________
       Coram                     r
       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

       Whether approved for reporting?1
       ________________________________________________
       For the petitioner:                Mr. N.K. thakur, Senior Advocate with
                                          Mr. Karan Veer Singh and Mr. Divya



                                          Raj Singh, Advocates.
       For the respondent:Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional
                          Advocate General.




       ________________________________________________





       Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The instant bail application has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, for releasing her on bail, in the event of arrest in

case FIR No.242/2023, dated 20.07.2023, registered at

Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections

498-A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

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

2. Status report stands filed.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the

status report filed by the respondent-State, are that on

20.07.2023, at 08:26 a.m., Pradhan Gram Panchayat Aagar,

telephonically informed the police that a newly married

female had committed suicide by hanging herself. In

consequence to the information so received, the police

rushed to the place of occurrence and found the corpse of

the Pooja Devi (deceased) in the house of Ramesh Chand.

On the spot, the father of deceased got recorded his

statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that

his younger daughter Pooja Devi (deceased) was married to

Anil Kumar in the year 2020 and out of their wedlock, a

daughter was born. He has further stated that after 3-4

months of the marriage, the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law

of the deceased, including Reena Kumari (petitioner herein),

started harassing her and they often used to say that the

deceased would be ousted and divorced. The husband of

the deceased also used to harass her. About one year back,

the deceased was harassed and the complainant made a

complaint to the Pradhan. Later on, the matter was settled

as the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased,

including the petitioner, assured that they will not harass the

deceased. He has further stated that on 20.07.2023, he was

telephonically informed by the police that the deceased was

serious, so he rushed to her matrimonial home and found the

corpse of the deceased. On the basis of the said statement

of the complainant, the police registered an FIR under the

apt Sections of IPC and the investigation commenced.

4. During the course of investigation, the police

prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the

witnesses and collected scientific samples. Post-mortem

examination on the dead body of the deceased was

conducted and scientific samples were preserved. As per

the medical opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was

asphyxia due to neck constriction.

5. The instant petition has been filed by the

petitioner on the ground that she is innocent and she has

been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation of

the case is complete and no recovery is to be effected from

the petitioner, hence, it is prayed that the petitioner be

enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate

General has opposed the application on the ground that the

petitioner is involved in a serious offence and keeping in view

the gravity of the offence, she is not entitled to be released

on bail.

7. I have given my considered thought to the rival

contentions raised and also gone through the police file as

well as the status report filed by the prosecution. The perusal

of the record reveals that the investigation in the case is

complete and no recovery is to be effected from the

petitioner.

8. The law with respect to grant of bail is now well

settled. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49, it has

been held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance

of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of

bail and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly

tried and duly found guilty. Relevant portion of the aforesaid

judgment reads as under:-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it

can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and

duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons

should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, `necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite

contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be

punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the

belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un- convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta Vs. CBI,

(2017) 5 SCC 218, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the

decision rendered in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) by

holding as under:-

"16. This Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, also involving an

economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an

accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal

respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive

nor preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any

court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it

or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction

to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite

period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted."

10. Similar reiteration of law can be found in

Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,

(2018) 3 SCC 22, wherein it has been held that a person is

believed to be innocent until found guilty and the grant of bail

is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or

in a correction home is an exception. Relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"1. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found

guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the

fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal

jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish

to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

..................

4. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the

dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the

.

Constitution and the fact that there is enormous

overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons."

11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of

the case and also going through the status report filed by the

State, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled to

be released on bail as the investigation of the case is

complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner.

As per the medical opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia

due to neck constriction. However, as per the FSL report, the

deceased was not intoxicated at the time of incidence. The

learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions received

from the Investigating Officer, has submitted that the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Moreover, the

prosecution has failed to produce any material on record to

suggest that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution

evidence on being enlarged on bail and there is also nothing

to suggest that she will abscond and flee from justice, if

released on bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is

allowed and the interim order dated 26.07.2023 is made

absolute, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required;

(ii) that she will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;