Ravinder vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 9114 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ravinder vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 9 July, 2024

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:4778 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) Nos. 1260 and 1261 of

.

Reserved on: 03.07.2024 Date of Decision: 09.07.2024.

1. Cr.MP(M) No. 1260 of 2024

Ravinder ...Petitioner

r Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1261 of 2024

Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioners : Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate, in both the petitions.

For the Respondent : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, with HC Harish Kumar, No. 84, IO, Police Station Rampur Bushahr.

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

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for

.

seeking their regular bail. It has been asserted that the

petitioners were arrested vide FIR No. 34 of 2024, dated

22.3.2024, registered in Police Station Rampur Bushehr, District

Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated.

There are major contradictions in the statements of the

complainant and the eyewitnesses. As per the statement of one

key witness Raji Devi, the informant was not present at the spot

at the time of the scuffle and he had arrived subsequently. The

family members of the deceased had not made any complaint to

the police nor did they get the post-mortem examination of the

body of the deceased conducted. They cremated the dead body as

per Hindu rituals in the presence of their relatives. The failure to

report the matter to the police creates doubt regarding the

prosecution's version. There is a probability that deceased

Gagan might have died due to a subsequent event that happened

when the deceased was with his family members. Bhagwan Dass

stated that the relatives of the deceased had told him at

Chichanaal that their relative resided above the road and they

would stay there. They got down at Chichanaal. There is a delay

.

in reporting the matter to the police. The incident had taken

place on 12.3.2024 but the FIR was lodged on 22.3.2024. The

informant reported the matter to the police because of the social

media report. The chain of circumstances does not connect the

petitioners with the commission of the crime. The challan has

been filed by the police which means that the petitioners are not

required to be investigated. The allegations in the FIR even if

assumed to be true do not constitute the commission of an

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioners

have been in judicial custody since 22.3.2024. They have no

criminal history. They have their houses and their roots in

society and there is no chance of their absconding. Hence, the

present petitions.

2. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report

asserting that Up-Pradhan Avinash Kaith, the informant, came

to the Police Station on 22.3.2024 and made a statement under

Section 154 of Cr.P.C. that on 12.3.2024 he was present in his

home. Raji called him at 10.30 PM and told him that one Nepali

was heavily drunk and was creating a ruckus. He had damaged

the windshield of Murat Singh's vehicle. He entered the vehicle

and damaged the stereo and the wire. He was not coming out of

.

the vehicle and in case an attempt was made to take him out of

the vehicle, he was hitting the person with the sticks. He was

also pelting stones at the people. Avinash Kaith reached the spot

after 15-20 minutes and found that one Nepali was sitting

outside the vehicle bleeding from the neck, nose and legs. Murat

Singh, his wife, Raji Devi, Satveer, Ashok, Devender, Ravinder,

Chinta Mani and Babri Devi were present on the spot. He found

that the rear windshield of the vehicle was damaged. The

informant tried to talk to the person but he was unable to

converse in Hindi. The person was demanding a scythe for

cutting the heads. Murat Singh, Devender, Ravinder and Satveer

had sticks in their hands. Nepali tried to touch the wife of Murat

Singh, after which Murat Singh, Devender, Satveer, Ashok

Kumar and Devender became infuriated and gave beatings to

him with sticks, kicks and fist blows. Ganesh and Parveen were

called to the spot. Praveen identified the person as Gagan and

stated that both of them belonged to the same area. Parveen also

disclosed that Gagan's son was residing with Bhagwan Dass.

Parveen called Gagan's son. The informant also called Bhagwan

Dass. It was cold and they lit up fire. Gagan tried to put the coal

in his mouth. The informant stopped him and extinguished the

.

fire. Wife, son, sister and brother-in-law of Gagan and Bhagwan

Dass, reached at 12.30 am. They took Gagan with them. The

informant told Gagan's family members that they could file a

complaint but they told that they would get Gagan treated first

and would report the matter thereafter. Bhagwan Dass stated

that he would get Murat Singh compensated for the loss caused

due to the damage to his vehicle. All the people left. The

informant came to know from social media on 21.3.2024 that

one Nepali was beaten to death in Village Dalog. The informant

inquired and found that Gagan who was beaten on the night of

12.3.2024 had died. The police registered the FIR and conducted

the investigation. The police seized the vehicle. Chicha Nalah

where the deceased had died and Badidhar Jungle where he was

cremated were shown by the deceased's son. Site plans were

prepared. The sticks were not produced by the accused and they

revealed on inquiry that they had put the sticks on fire. The

remnants of the dead body were sent to SFSL, Junga and it was

reported that the remnants were of the human. The police found

sufficient material against Murat Singh, Satvir Singh, Ravinder,

Ashok and Devender and arrested them. Gagan's relatives were

taking him to Rampur Hospital but he succumbed to injuries on

.

the way at Chichha Nallah. The dead body was cremated on

13.3.2024. The accused had threatened Gagan's relatives that the

police would take action against them as they were not

registered with the Panchayat or the police if they went to the

police to report the matter. The police prepared the challan and

presented it before the Court; hence, it was prayed that the

present petitions be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Rajat Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional

Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Rajat Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were

falsely implicated. As per the prosecution case, the deceased had

entered the vehicle of Murat Singh. He was attacking the

persons who came near the vehicle with sticks and stones. The

deceased was taken from the spot by his relatives and it is not

known what happened to him thereafter. The dead body was not

subjected to postmortem examination and there is no evidence

to show that the beatings given by the accused resulted in the

death of the deceased. Therefore, he prayed that the present

.

petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. He

relied upon in Indresh Kumar versus State of U.P. and another, Cr.

Appeal No. 938 of 2022, Raj Kumar Vs. State of H.P. along with

connected matter, Cr.MP(M) Nos. 3037 and 3038 of 2023, Narinder

Singh Vs. State of H.P., Cr. MP(M) No. 1642 of 2022, State of H.P. Vs.

Krishan Kumar, Cr. Appeal No. 4124 of 2023, Shyam Singh Vs. State

of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No. 450 of 2022 and Jitender Kumar Vs. State of

H.P. along with connected matters, Cr.MP(M) Nos. 2965, 2966 and

2967 of 2023 in support of his submissions.

5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioners

had given beatings to the deceased. They intimidated the

relatives of the deceased that they would be arrested in case the

matter was reported to the police. Hence, the petitioners cannot

take advantage of the fact that the deceased was not subjected to

postmortem examination. The deceased had died on the night of

the incident, which clearly shows that the injuries sustained by

him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. All the accused gave beatings to the deceased and they

would be liable by virtue of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

for the murder of the deceased. Keeping in view the nature of the

.

crime, the petitioners should not be released on bail. Hence, he

prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the

parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip

Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: -

12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be

exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may

vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a

grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in

mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be

considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there

being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have

been explained in the following words:

"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of

granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to

indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly

where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons

would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC

.

598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas

[(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)"

8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs

Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is

warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta

Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the

relevant principles were restated thus:

'9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally

incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of

this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other

circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable

ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

.

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.'

9. The police recorded the statement of the deceased's

son, who stated that the deceased died on the night of the

incident at Chicha Nallah. He was cremated on the next day

because he and other persons were told that the police would

register a case against them in case they went to the police;

hence, they did not report the matter to the police. The police

came to know of the matter when a video was circulated on

social media regarding the death of a Nepali caused by the

beatings. The relatives of the deceased would not have reported

the matter to the police and nothing would have happened if the

video had not been circulated on social media. This shows the

effectiveness of the threat advanced to the deceased's son and

his relatives. Therefore, the submission that the matter was not

reported to the police at the earliest and the whole case of the

prosecution would become suspect due to the delay cannot be

accepted.

10. Heavy reliance was placed upon the statement of Raji

Devi, to submit that her statement contradicts the statement of

.

informant. It is not permissible to appreciate the evidence at this

stage as the Court has to see a prima facie case while granting

bail. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Indresh Kumar

(supra), wherein it was held that the statements under Section

161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible but are relevant to consider

the prima facie case against the petitioners. There can be no

dispute with this fact. The statements of the informant and

Murtu Singh's wife show that Murtu Singh, Ravinder, Devender

and Ashok had given beatings to the deceased. The statement of

the son of the deceased shows that the deceased had died on the

date of the incident. Therefore, prima facie the injuries caused by

the petitioners and the other accused resulted in Gagan's death.

11. Reference was made to the statement of Raji Devi in

which she had stated that Ashok Kumar came to the spot but he

had only driven his vehicle to some distance so that the deceased

could not damage it and he went to his home thereafter. This

statement cannot be read in isolation and has to be read with the

statement of the informant and Sushma who have categorically

stated that Ashok Kumar had given beatings to the deceased. As

already stated, it is not permissible to appreciate the evidence at

this stage and determine which of the version is correct. Hence,

.

it cannot be held that the statement of Raji Devi is sufficient to

discredit the prosecution's version.

12. In Raj Kumar (supra), the accused threw the deceased

into the river believing that he was dead whereas he was not and

the Court held that they could not be held liable for murder.

Krishan Kumar (supra) was a criminal appeal in which the delay

in reporting the matter was considered a relevant factor. In the

present case, the delay has been prima facie explained. In

Narinder (supra), it was held that there was no premeditation to

commit the offence. In the present case, all the accused gave

beatings to the deceased when his hand touched the breast of

Murat Singh's wife, which shows that they were acting in

concert. In Sham Singh (supra), the Court held that the

petitioner was entitled to bail as he had remained inside the

prison since 2021, which is not the case here. In Jitender Kumar

(supra), the deceased died due to coronary insufficiency which is

not the case here. Hence, none of the cited judgments applies to

the present case.

13. The act of the petitioners resulted in the loss of one

life. They intimidated the relatives of the deceased who could

.

not report the matter to the police, which shows the

effectiveness of the threat advanced by them. There is a force in

the submissions of Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional

Advocate General that releasing the petitioners on bail at this

stage can interfere with the fair trial because the possibility of

intimidating the witnesses cannot be ruled out.

14. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the offence, the

circumstances in which it was committed and the attempt made

to suppress the commission of the offence of the crime, the

petitioners cannot be released on bail.

15. Consequently, the present petitions fail and the same

are dismissed.

16. The observation made herein before shall remain

confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no

bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 9th July, 2024 (Chander)