Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 September, 2023

Bench: Sushil Kukreja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                               Cr.MPs(M) No. 2014 to 2016 of 2023





                                                               Reserved on: 06.09.2023
                                                              Decided on:            08..09.2023





    1. Cr.MP(M) No. 2014 of 2023:
    Ramesh Chand
                                                                                   ....Petitioner




                                                 Versus


    State of Himachal Pradesh
                               r            ...Respondent

___________________________________________________

2. Cr.MP(M) No. 2015 of 2023:

Sunita Devi

....Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

___________________________________________________

3. Cr.MP(M) No. 2016 of 2023:

Anil Kumar

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

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

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

In all the petitions:

For the petitioner(s): Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr.Karan Veer Singh and Mr. Divya

Raj Singh, Advocates.

For the respondent/State: Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma,

Additional Advocate General.

_____________________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant bail applications have been moved by

the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for releasing them on bail, in case FIR No. 242 of

2023, dated 20.07.2023, under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 of

Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), registered at Police Station

Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

2. The facts, which emerge from the records, 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 aftermath 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 of Ramesh Chand (petitioner in Cr. MP (M) No.2014

of 2023). On the spot, the father of deceased got recorded her

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

younger daughter Pooja Devi (deceased) was married to Anil

Kumar (petitioner in Cr.MP (M) No.2016/2023) in the year 2020

and out of their wedlock a daughter was born. He further stated

that after 3-4 months of the marriage, the mother-in-law and

sisters-in-law of the deceased 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 the

deceased. About one year back, the deceased was harassed

and the complainant made a complaint to the Pradhan. Later on,

the matter was settled and the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law

of the deceased assured that they will not harass her. On the

statement of the complainant, so made under Section 154

Cr.P.C., the police registered an FIR under the apt Sections of

IPC and the investigation commenced.

3. 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. Accused persons-petitioners Ramesh

Chand and Sunita Devi(petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.2015/23) were

arrested on 20.07.2023, whereas accused-petitioner Anil Kumar

was arrested on 21.07.2023.

4. The instant petitions have been filed by the

petitioners on the ground that they are innocent and they have

been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Senior

counsel for the petitioners submitted that the investigation of the

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

petitioners, hence, it is prayed that the petitioners be released on

bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General

has opposed the application on the ground that the petitioners

are involved in a serious offence and keeping in view the gravity

of the offence, they are not entitled to be released on bail.

6. 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

the petitioners are presently lodged in the judicial custody.

7. 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."

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. In the case in hand, , the investigation of the

case is almost complete and the petitioners are in judicial

custody, hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by

keeping them in further judicial custody because the charge-

sheet in the case is yet to be filed and the trial may take a

sufficiently long time to conclude. Moreover, as per the

medical opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia due to

neck constriction and as per the FSL report, the deceased

was not intoxicated at the time of incidence. Therefore, in

such background of the case, the complicity, if any, of the

accused persons is yet to be established, as such, there is

no reason to let them incarcerate in jail for an indefinite

period. The prosecution has failed to produce any material

on record to suggest that the petitioners will tamper with the

prosecution evidence or will flee from justice on being

enlarged on bail as they are permanent residents of District

Kangra.


    11.           Considering
                  r            to      the    overall          facts         and

circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present

is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioners

on bail is required to be exercised in their favour.

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is

ordered that the petitioners, who have been arrested by the

police, in case FIR No.242/2023, dated 20.07.2023, under

Sections 498A, 306 & 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station

Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P, shall be forthwith released on bail,

subject to their furnishing personal bond to the tune of

Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the

satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala.

The bail order is, however, subject to the following conditions:-

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

(ii) that they 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 them from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

(iii) that they will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor they will try to win over the prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;