Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 06.09.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 October, 2024
2024:HHC:9475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP (M) No. 1761 of 2024
Reserved on: 06.09.2024
Date of Decision: 3rd October, 2024
Ravi Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was
arrested for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 302, 356, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
'IPC') vide FIR No. 20 of 2024 dated 02.03.2024 registered at
Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. The petitioner is
innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is a
young boy aged 20 years. He is not in a position to influence
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2024:HHC:9475
prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is a patient of epilepsy and
requires care. The investigation is complete and the presence of
the petitioner is not required for investigation. The petitioner
would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court
may impose; hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police received an intimation that a person
was lying unconscious on the upper floor of the boot shop in
Mehre Bazaar. The police went to the spot to verify the
information and found the dead body of Dinesh on the spot. A
post-mortem examination was conducted. Nobody suspected
any foul play and the police conducted the proceedings under
Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the brother of the deceased
filed an application before the police stating that Kamlesh had
called him and told him that Dinesh was not picking up the
mobile phone. He found afterwards that Dinesh had died. He
conducted the inquiry and found that Shiv Kumar, Dilkhush and
Arjun were present with Dinesh. The death of Dinesh was not
natural and it appeared that all of them had killed Dinesh. They
were also found missing after the incident. The police conducted
the investigation and found that the petitioner Ravi Kumar had
2024:HHC:9475
called Raghav, Dinesh, Jagdish and Vikas to play cards. They
went to the room of Shiv. Radhey, Arjun and Arun also joined
them at 8:50 pm. Arun left for his home. Arjun and Raghav went
to the room of Shiv Kumar. Dilkhush also reached the room.
They played cards till 10:15/10:30 pm. An interruption was
caused by Radhey and Vikas asked him to leave the room. Ravi,
Dinesh and Jagdish left the room whereas Arjun, Arun, Dinesh
and Dilkhush remained in the room. Radhey left the room.
Jagdish accompanied his cousin Vinod. Ravi, Dinesh, Jagdish and
Vinod returned to the room of Shiv Kumar. Dilkhush went to the
washroom and Raghav waited for him. Dinesh, Ravi, Jagdish,
Arun and Arjun started playing cards. Raghav entered the room
armed with a glass bottle. Vinod left the room. Raghav
demanded money from Dinesh and hit his head with a glass
bottle. Dinesh ran away from the room but Raghav caught him
and brought him inside the room where he gave him beatings
with a stick. He also removed 500 - 600 rupees of Dinesh. Arjun,
Arun, Vikas and Jagdish left the room. Jagdish returned after
some time and saw Dinesh lying on the floor. Raghav and Ravi @
Mirgi were inside the room. Ravi asked Jagdish to dispose of the
body but Jagdish declined. Petitioner and Raghav threatened
2024:HHC:9475
Jagdish. Petitioner also threatened Vikas. Raghav and Ravi were
involved in the commission of crime. The final report of the
postmortem and the report of the voice sample are still awaited.
The petitioner has committed a heinous offence; therefore, it
was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was
falsely implicated. The crime was committed by Radhey and the
petitioner has no role in the same. He was merely present in the
room. Other persons were also present in the room but they
were not implicated. The petitioner is aged 20 years and he is
not likely to commit the crime in case of release on bail, hence,
he prayed that the present petition be allowed.
5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner
is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He can
2024:HHC:9475
intimidate the witnesses in case of release on bail; hence, he
prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
2024:HHC:9475
(d) Frivolity 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
2024:HHC:9475
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;
2024:HHC:9475
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted
by grant of bail.'
9. The present case has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. The status report shows that the petitioner and
Radhey remained in the room after other persons had left.
Petitioner and Radhey had also threatened other persons. The
petitioner had asked Jagdish to help in the disposal of the body.
The deceased was alive when he was last seen with the petitioner
and Radhey and was found dead after Jagdish returned. This
circumstance by itself prima facie, shows that the petitioner is
involved in the murder of the deceased.
11. It was submitted that the petitioner was merely
present in the room and had not committed any crime. This is a
matter of trial. The status report shows that the petitioner was
present in the room with the deceased and Radhey and other
persons had left. The deceased was found dead when Jagdish
returned. Thus, it cannot be said that all the persons were
present in the room when the deceased was killed.
2024:HHC:9475
12. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous
and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the
nature of the offence and the severity of the sentence, the
petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage.
13. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
14. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
3rd October, 2024
(saurav pathania )
