Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prem Chand Son Of Jagdish Chand vs State Of H.P. ....Non-Petitioner on 8 April, 2015
Author: P.S. Rana
Bench: P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 305 of 2015
Order Reserved on 2nd April, 2015
.
Date of Order 8th April, 2015
________________________________________________________
Prem Chand son of Jagdish Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ....Non-petitioner
________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
__________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate For the Non-petitioner: Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________ P.S. Rana, Judge.
Order:- Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 32 of 2015 dated 24.3.2015 registered under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC at P.S. Gagret District Una (H.P.) 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP 22. It is pleaded that petitioner has been falsely implicated in present case. It is further pleaded that petitioner will not influence the prosecution witnesses and .
will not tamper with prosecution evidence. It is pleaded that petitioner has two minor children, parents and family to support. It is pleaded that any condition imposed by the Court will be binding on the petitioner. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought.
3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report, FIR No. 32 of 2015 dated 24.3.2015 registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Gagret District Una (H.P.) against the petitioner. There is recital in police report that on dated 23.3.2015 at about 8.40 PM I.O. received information that one woman with consumption of poison was admitted in FRU Gagret. There is further recital in police report that police officials went to FRU Gagret where deceased was brought dead. There is further recital in police report that statement of Anu Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. There is recital in police report that deceased Rekha Devi was married in the year 2009 at Amb District Una (H.P.). There is recital in police report that deceased ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP 3 Rekha Devi has one son namely Jagdeep Kumar and one daughter Taniya. There is further recital in police report that deceased Rekha was in strained relations with her .
husband Pardeep Kumar. There is also recital in police report that Pardeep Kumar used to beat Rekha Devi generally and also used to demand dowry. There is further recital in police report that there was physical and mental torture to deceased Rekha Devi in her matrimonial home.
There is recital in police report that on dated 10.2.2015 deceased Rekha met Smt. Anu Devi and told her that deceased was very aggrieved. There is recital in police report that deceased also told that her husband Pardeep Kumar and her elder brother-in-law Prem and elder sister-
in-law Pawna have harassed the deceased and have beaten the deceased when the deceased was alive. There is recital in police report that accused persons have also told the deceased to bring money and deceased also used to inform Smt. Anu Devi complainant that her husband Pardeep Kumar, her elder brother-in-law and her elder sister-in-law Pawna used to beat the deceased. There is recital in police report that deceased Rekha Devi was pregnant. There is recital in police report that quarrel took ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP 4 place between co-accused Pardeep Kumar, co-accused Prem and co-accused Pawna and thereafter deceased had consumed poison. There is further recital in police report .
that after registration of case and during investigation post mortem of deceased was conducted and site plan was prepared. There is also recital in police report that statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded by way of videography. There is further recital in police report that co-accused Pardeep Kumar was arrested on dated 24.3.2015 and other co-accused namely Pawna and Prem have concealed themselves. There is recital in police report that since 27.3.2015 co-accused Pardeep Kumar is in judicial custody. There is further recital in police report that other co-accused namely Pawna and Prem Chand have not joined the investigation and recovery of bed sheet is still to be effected. There is also recital in police report that if petitioner is released on bail then petitioner would threat the prosecution witnesses. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought.
4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP 5 General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record.
5. Following points arise for determination in this .
bail application:-
1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application?
2. Final Order.
Findings on Point No.1
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.
7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that any condition imposed by the Court will be binding upon the petitioner and petitioner has minor children, parents and family to support and on this ground bail application filed by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP 6 petitioner be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature .
and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In present case it is prima facie proved on record that deceased Rekha had committed suicide on dated 23.3.2015. There is direct allegation against the petitioner namely Prem Chand who is elder brother-in-law of deceased that when deceased Rekha lastly met with complainant Anu Devi deceased told her that petitioner namely Prem Chand in collusion with other co-accused used to harass the deceased Rekha Devi in her matrimonial house and also used to beat her and also used to demand dowry from her. There are direct allegations of harassment, beatings and demand of dowry ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP 7 against the petitioner. Deceased had committed suicide in her matrimonial house and there is allegation of abetment of suicide against the petitioner. Investigation in this case is .
at the initial stage. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1290 titled Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India that there are two types of abetments. (1) Active abetment. (2) Passive abetment. In active abetment something is abetted to end the life of deceased and in passive abetment something is not done which should have been done to save the life of deceased from suicide.
Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on anticipatory bail at this stage then investigation of case which is at the initial stage will be adversely affected.
8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that investigation is in initial stage of case and custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential in present case in the ends of justice is accepted for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. Court is of the opinion that there are direct allegations against the petitioner relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. Court is of the opinion that offence under Section 306 IPC is offence ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP 8 against the society and against the married women. Court is of the opinion that every married woman has legal right to live in matrimonial house with dignity and honour. Court is of the .
opinion that no married woman will commit suicide in her matrimonial house leaving her two minor children at the mercy of other relatives without any reasonable cause.
Keeping in view the above stated facts it is held that it would not be expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail at the initial stage of Point No.2 Final Order r to investigation of case. Point No.1 is answered in negative.
9. In view of my findings on point No.1 anticipatory bail application filed by petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
Pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of.
(P.S.Rana),
April 08,2015(ms) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:57:59 :::HCHP