Himachal Pradesh High Court

Harpreet vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 July, 2024

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

    Neutral Citation No.2024:HHC:4861



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                Cr.MP(M) No. 1098 of 2024 a/w




                                                                      .
                                Cr.MP(M) No. 1100 of 2024





                                Decided on: 10th July, 2024

    1. Cr.M.P(M) No. 1098 of 2024





    Harpreet
                                                                         ....Petitioner.

                                        Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh
                                                                    .... Respondent.

    2. Cr.M.P(M) No. 1100 of 2024

    Khushnoor Kaur

                                                                         ....Petitioner.

                                        Versus


    State of Himachal Pradesh
                                                                    .... Respondent.




    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
    For the petitioner(s)       :       M/s Suneet Goel and Karan





                                        Kapoor, Advocates, for the
                                        petitioner(s), in both the petitions.
    For the respondent(s) :  Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate
                             General, for the respondent(s), in
                             both the petitions.
    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

As both the petitions arise out of the same FIR,

therefore, they have been decided vide common order.

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

2. Petitioners herein, are accused in FIR No.29 of

2019, dated 19.06.2019, registered under Sections 302, 201

and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the

India Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC' for short),

at Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan, H.P. Petitioner

Harpreet is stated to be in custody since 01.05.2021 and

22.03.2021.

r to petitioner Khushnoor is stated to be in custody since

3. The case of the prosecution is that a dead body was

found under the convert in Ramgarh jungle in Tehsil Nalagarh,

District Solan, H.P, on 19.05.2019. The same in the year 2021

was identified as the body of one Mr. Sandeep S/o Roop Singh,

resident of Doda Gate, Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab. It is

further the case of prosecution that in the month of December,

2021, an accused was brought to police station Nalagarh, who

made a revelation that while he was lodged in Sangroor Jail in

some other FIR, one person named Karamjit disclosed to him

that he along-with his partner had murdered deceased Sandeep

in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the said

revelation of the said accused, the investigation was carried out

and in the course of the said investigation, both the petitioners

have been arrested. According, to the prosecution, both the

accused as well as the deceased were involved in the business

of migration of citizens of India to foreign countries and

Sandeep was murdered by the accused on account of some

dispute that arose between them, with regard to the distribution

of money.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that

the petitioners are innocent and they have been wrongly

implicated in the case. He further submitted that the body of an

unidentified person was found in the year 2019 and the

petitioners were arrested on the basis of an alleged revelation

of one of the accused, whose statement has been taken to be

the gospel truth by the prosecution to arrest the petitioners. He

further submitted that both the petitioners are in custody for

more than three years. He has apprised the Court that after

framing of charges, the trial is proceeding at an extremely slow

pace, which can be inferred from the fact that out of 45

witnesses that have been cited by the prosecution, only 4 have

been examined. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no

possibility of the trial being concluded within some reasonable

time, the petitioners may be ordered to be released on bail and

they shall abide by all such conditions that may be imposed

upon them, by the Court.

5. The bail petitions are opposed by the State.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the

allegation against the petitioners is both grave and heinous and

further as the petitioners are not residents of the State of

Himachal Pradesh, there is each and every possibility that if

released on bail, they may jump the bail and thus may not be

available for the purposes of the trial. He further submitted that

the trial is proceeding at a satisfactory pace and, therefore also,

the prayer of the petitioners deserves rejection. Learned Deputy

Advocate General has also argued that as the statements of the

main prosecution witnesses are yet to the recorded, therefore,

in these circumstances, if the petitioners are ordered to be

released on bail, there is each and every possibility that they

may try to win over or influence the witnesses which would

adversely affect the course of trial.

6. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that the petitioners again undertake to abide by all

the conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of

grant of bail to them and they shall also provide local sureties.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and

also gone through the record that has been produced for the

perusal of the Court as well as status report filed by the State.

8. The allegations which have led to the arrest of the

petitioners, have already been narrated herein above. It is not in

dispute that the petitioners are in custody for more than 3 years.

It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been arrested

on the basis of revelation made by an accused, who stated that

one of the accused had made a confession to him in a Jail in

Sangroor about the commission of the alleged offence, which

has led to their arrest.

9. When this case was listed on 27.06.2024, the

following order was passed:-

"Heard for some time. The Court stands informed that

the case is now listed for recording the statements of

some of the prosecution witnesses on 5th July, 2024.

Subject to its roster, learned trial Court is requested

that, if possible, it be ensured that dates be given in a

quick session for recording the statements of the

remaining prosecution witnesses.

As prayed for, list on 10.07.2024."

10. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioners has

apprised the Court that on 05.07.2024, no PW was present

before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the matter has

now been adjourned for recording the evidence of the

witnesses, referred to at Serial No. 2, 8 and 9, for 24.08.2024.

11. There is no denial to the fact that the allegation

against the petitioners is both grave and heinous, but then, this

Court can also not ignore the fact that the petitioners are in

custody for more than 3 years now. Whether or not the

petitioners are not guilty of the offences alleged against them,

of course, is a matter of trial but in view of the speed at which

the trial is proceeding, there is no likelihood of trial being

concluded shortly. It could not be disputed by the State that out

of 45 cited witnesses, statements of only 4 witnesses have

been recorded and now the matter has been listed in the month

of August for recording the statements of three more witnesses.

12. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in

Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No.

3809 of 2024), titled Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of

Maharashtra and another, has been pleased to hold that if the

State or any prosecuting agency, including the Court concerned

has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right

of the accused to have a speedy trial, as enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India then the State or any

prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the

ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the

Constitution of India applies irrespective of the nature of the

Crime. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held that this fact

should not be lost sight of that the person before the Court is

still an accused and not a convict. The over-arching postulate of

criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be

innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly,

howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

13. In the light of what has been observed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above-said judgment and

taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are in

custody for more than three years and there is no possibility of

the trial being concluded within a reasonable time, these

petitions are allowed with the direction that the petitioners

herein are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.29 of

2019, dated 19.06.2019, registered under Sections 302, 201

and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the

India Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC' for short),

at Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan, H.P., subject to

their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with

one local surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of

the learned Trial Court concerned. This order shall, however, be

subject to the following conditions:-

i.)

Petitioners shall 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; ii.) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the

case in any manner whatsoever;

iii) Petitioners shall not make any inducement, threat

or promise 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