Himachal Pradesh High Court

Vikram Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 August, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                                     Cr. MP (M) No. 1776 of 2024 with




                                                                             .
                                                           Cr.MP(M) No.1777 of 2024





                                                       Date of Decision: 28.08.2024
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. Cr. MP (M) No. 1776 of 2024





    Vikram Thakur                                                             ...Petitioner
                                            Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh                 ...Respondent
    _____________________________________________________
    2. Cr. MP (M) No. 1777 of 2024




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

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    For the Petitioner(s):              Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate.

    For the Respondent"                     Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
                                            and   Mr.   B.C.Verma,    Additional




                                            Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi
                                            Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.





    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioners, namely Vikram Thakur and Saurav

Guleria, who are behind the bars since 12.08.2024, have

approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for

grant of regular bail in case FIR No.136 of 2024, dated 27.07.2024,

under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 127(a) and 3(5) of the

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station Balh, District

Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Pursuant to order dated 13.08.2024, respondent-State

has filed status report and HC Ram Chander has also come

present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of the status report/record reveals that

complainant Basant Singh in his statement recorded under Section

173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, alleged that on

27.07.2024, at about 12.30 PM, one boy, who is resident of

Lunapani, came to his shop and called him outside the shop. He

alleged that when he came out of his shop, the boy, who called him

outside attacked him alongwith other four boys, who at the relevant

time were carrying deadly weapons in their hands. He alleged that

for unknown reason, he was given beatings on his head with stick

as well as knuckle (Grip), as a result thereof, he suffered multiple

injuries. After recording aforesaid statement of the complainant

under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

police got him medically examined at Medical College Ner Chowk,

where Doctor opined injuries No.2 and 4 to be grevious in nature

caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 1 and 3 to be

simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Doctor also opined that

injury No.4 may be dangerous to life. In the aforesaid background,

FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the

petitioners, who, at first instance, had approached this Court by

way of anticipatory bail filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, but same were withdrawn on 7th

August, 2024. After dismissal of anticipatory bails, having been

filed by the petitioners, they were arrested on 12.08.2024. Since

investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be

recovered from them, they have approached this Court in the

instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to completion

of the investigation, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate

General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from

the bail petitioners, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence

alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any

leniency. Learned Additional Advocate General, while making this

Court peruse statements of the complainant as well as other

prosecution witnesses, vehemently argued that on the date of

alleged incident, complainant was given merciless beatings by the

accused named in the FIR. He states that though accused, named

in the FIR, had come with an intention and knowledge to kill the

complainant, but he survived on account of immediate medical

assistance/help provided to him. Learned Additional Advocate

General states that since challan is yet to be filed, it may not be in

the interest of the justice to enlarge petitioners on bail because in

the event of petitioners' being enlarged on bail, they may not only

flee from justice, but may again cause harm to the complainant,

whose statement is yet to be recorded in the trial Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the

date of alleged incident bail petitioners allegedly gave beatings to

the complainant, as a result thereof, he suffered grevious injuries

on his head. Injuries No.2 and 4 have been opined to be grevious

in nature caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas injury No.4 has

been opined to be dangerous to the life of the complainant. Since

entire incident was captured on CCTV, this Court is not persuaded

to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners

have been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that

prosecution has adduced on record overwhelming evidence

suggestive of the fact that bail petitioners gave merciless beatings

with the sharp edged weapon to the complainant, as a result

thereof, he remained admitted in the hospital. No doubt, one of the

injury alleged to be caused by the bail petitioners, was

subsequently termed to be dangerous to the life, but as of today,

complainant is out of danger and he stands already discharged

from the hospital.

6. Though, bail petitioners is accused of heinous crime

punishable under Sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 127(a) and

3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, but this Court cannot lose

sight of the fact that guilt, if any, of them is yet to be established on

record by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Much reliance

has been placed upon the CCTV Footage, wherein though

accused can be seen running after giving beatings to the

complainant, but such fact, if any, is yet to be established on

record by the prosecution. Similarly, version put forth by the

independent witnesses proposed to be examined by the

prosecution is yet to be tested by the trial Court in totality of

evidence adduced on record by the prosecution.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in

catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his

/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt of the

bail petitioners is yet to be established on record by leading cogent

and convincing evidence, there appears to be no justification for

this Court to let bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite

period during the trial. Moreover, this Court finds that investigation

in the case is complete and at present nothing remains to be

recovered from the bail petitioners. Since bail petitioners are in

judicial custody, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping

them behind bars for indefinite period during trial rather, that would

amount to pre-trial conviction, which is not permissible under law.

Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General

that in the event of bail petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may

flee from justice or may again indulge in such activities, can be

best met by putting bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018,

Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on

6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed

for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be

proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until

found guilty.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus

Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases

49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny

bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the

court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by

the Hon'ble Apex Court that 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.

10. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017)

5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail

is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the

proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail

should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party

will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail

and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of

accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the

punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused,

circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that

crime.

11. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus

Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down

various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for

bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation,

punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and

witnesses being influenced.

12. In view of above, bail petitioners have carved out a

case for themselves, as such, present petitions are allowed. Bail

petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to their

furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh each with two

local sureties in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the

learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

(a) they shall make themselves 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) they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

.

(c) they shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to

any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and