Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 12.07.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 26 July, 2024

Author: Sushil Kukreja

Bench: Sushil Kukreja

1 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 902 of 2024 Reserved on: 12.07.2024 Decided on : 26.07.2024 _______________________________________________________ Rajat Lalta @ Golu ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate.

  For the respondent                :             Mr. Raj Negi and Ms. Niyati
                                                  Thakur,   Deputy     Advocates
                                                  General.

  Sushil Kukreja, Judge

By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439

of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is seeking

bail in case FIR No. 45/2023, dated 15.08.2023, under

Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as "IPC") registered at Police Station Sangrah,

District Sirmaur, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

14.08.2023 a telephonic information was received at Police

Post Haripur Dhar that a person was found dead in suspicious

circumstances. Accordingly, the police party left for

Haripurdhar and found the corpse of deceased Rajender alias

Pappu at Kharoti Khala. The police recorded the statement of

Rajender Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C., who stated that

today at about 8:40 p.m. his sister telephonically inquired from

him that her husband Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased)

could not be seen anywhere. On this, when he started

searching for his brother-in-law (Jija), he came to know that

his brother-in-law was sitting in the hotel of Manoj Chhinta at

Haripurdhar and on making inquiries, Manoj Chhinta disclosed

to him that Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) had left

his homestay at about 6:30 p.m. At about 10 p.m. he was

telephonically informed by Sunder Lalta that Rajender alias

Pappu (deceased) was murdered by Kaka Manta and

thereafter he was taken in a car and his corpse was thrown in

a gorge near Kharoti Khala. Sunder Lalta also told him that

Kaka Manta was accompanying Naresh and Singhta.

3 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

Thereafter, the complainant Rajender Kumar alognwith Ankit

and Tanmay went to Kharoti Khala in search of the deceased

and found the corpse of the deceased lying in the ghaasni at a

distance of about 50-60 meters from the road. On the basis of

the statement of the complainant, FIR in question came to be

registered and the investigation commenced. On 15.08.2023,

accused Saurav Manta and Lucky were arrested. On

19.08.2023, accused Naresh Kumar and Ramesh Chand were

arrested. On 20.09.2023, Rajat Lalta (petitioner herein)

surrendered before the police.

3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner

on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the present case. The learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not at all

involved in the alleged offence and the prosecution has linked

him only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as he was

neither present at the place of occurrence, nor he had

anything to do with the alleged offence, as such, he deserves

to be released on bail.

4 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

4. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General

opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in

view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed

by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and

have also gone through the record of the case.

6. The perusal of the record reveals that on

14.08.2023, petitioner Rajat Lalta, accused Naresh Kumar and

Jagdish alias JD were present at Lohandhar and in the

meantime, Balbir alias Ballu also reached there. The petitioner

brought one bottle of liquor there and except Jagdish alias JD

all of them had consumed liquor. Accused Naresh Kumar had

also asked accused Saurav Manta alias Kaka on telephone to

reach there. Since at that time accused Lucky was also

present in the house of accused Saurav Manta, as such, both

of them came to Lohandhar in a car bearing registration No.

HP-08A-6468, where except Jagdish all of them had

consumed liquor. Thereafter all of them went to Haripurdhar in

the aforesaid car. There the petitioner had purchased another 5 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

bottle of liquor and at Haripurdhar, Ramesh Chand alias Bittu

also met them, from where, all of them went towards Nahan

Side. A little ahead of Haripurdhar, all of them, except Jagdish

consumed liquor, where accused Naresh Kumar desired to

have charas/sulfa. Therefore, accused Naresh Kumar had

called Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased), who used to

sell charas/sulfa. However, he refused to give them charas.

On this, all of them except Balbir alias Ballu and Jagdish alias

JD had planned to kill Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased)

and they again called him on telephone to give them charas.

He (deceased) agreed to it and aksed them to come to

Rajgarh road. At Rajgarh road, Rajat Lalta (petitioner) and

Jagdish alighted from the car and accused Naresh Kumar had

again called Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) on his

phone. At that time, Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased)

was sitting in the homestay of Manoj Chhinta and thereafter,

he came there and sat in the car of accused Saurav Manta, in

which, accused Naresh Kumar and Lucky were already sitting.

A little ahead Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) gave

charas to them and in the meantime, the petitioner and 6 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

Ramesh Chand alias Bittu also came there and all of them

had consumed charas. Accused Ramesh Chand kept one

knife in the car of accused Saurav Manta. The car was being

driven by accused Saurav Manta and at that time accused

Lucky was sitting on the co-driver seat and on the rear seats

accused Naresh Kumar, Rajender Singh alias Pappu

(deceased) and Balbir alias Ballu were sitting. However,

accused Ramesh Chand and the petitioner did not sit in the

car and came back towards Haripurdhar Bazaar. A little ahead,

accused Saurav Manta had parked his car on the side of the

road and accused Naresh Kumar gave him knife and

thereafter, accused Saurav Manta stabbed the deceased on

his neck, as a result of which, he died. After that in order to

destroy the evidence, accused Naresh Kumar and Saurav

Manta threw the dead body of the deceased below the road

near Kharoti Khala.

7. The law with respect to the grant or refusal of bail

is 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 7 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

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

8 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

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

9 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

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

10 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

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. The story of the prosecution is that all the accused

persons had made a plan to eliminate the deceased and to

extort money from him, however, at this stage, no satisfactory

material has been placed on record by the prosecution to

suggest that the petitioner was also involved in the alleged

crime, as admittedly he was not present at the place of

occurrence where the deceased was killed, rather as per the

prosecution story itself, he alongwith accused Ramesh Chand

had alighted from the car and came back to Haripurdhar

Bazaar. At this stage, there is no evidence on record to

suggest that the petitioner had also participated in the

commission of murder of the deceased in furtherance of

common intention. There is also prima facie no evidence on

record to suggest that the petitioner had shared common

intention of committing murder of the deceased. Moreover, in 11 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

the judgments cited above, it has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that one is deemed to be innocent till the time

he/she is not proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case

in hand, the complicity, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be

established on record, as such, there is no reason to let the

petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial,

especially when he is behind the bars since 20.09.2023 and

the trial has still not commenced. Furthermore, the

investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed on

10.11.2023 and no recovery is to be effected from the

petitioner. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the

petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence and that

he will abscond and flee from justice, if enlarged on bail. The

apprehension expressed by the State that in the event of

being enlarged on bail the petitioner may tamper with the

evidence or flee from justice can be met by putting the

petitioner to stringent conditions. Needless to state that bail is

a rule and jail is an exception and the object of the bail is to

secure the presence of the accused in the trial.

12 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where

judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to

be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is

allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been

arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 45/2023, dated

15.08.2023, under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC, registered

at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P.shall be

forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal

bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with one

surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial

Court. The bail order is, however, subject to the following

conditions:-

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

(ii) that he 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 him from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

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

13 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

(iv) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

(v) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

12. Needless to say that the Investigating agency shall

be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if

any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner.

13. Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in

this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the

merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by

any observations made therein.

14. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of

the bail order to the Superintendent, Model Central Jail,

Nahan, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of

grant of bail in the e-prison software.

15. In case, the petitioner is not released within a

period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the

Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is directed to

inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Nahan. The

Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, is further directed

that if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the 14 ( 2024:HHC:5871 )

order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from

today, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 26th July, 2024 (raman)

DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL

VIRENDER PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e2898 117bfa738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S= Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b84983

BAHADUR 689d027cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADUR Reason: I am approving this document Location: