Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Son Of Sh Balak Ram vs State Of H.P on 5 August, 2015
Author: P.S.Rana
Bench: P.S.Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
.
SHIMLA:
Cr.MP(M) No. 878 of 2015.
Order reserved on:31.7.2015.
Date of Order: August 5 ,2015
Vijay Kumar Son of Sh Balak Ram
of
....Petitioner.
Versus:
State of H.P.
rt Non-petitioner.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for Reporting?1yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. N.S.Chandel, Advocate.
For non-petitioner: Mr. M.L.Chauhan, Addl. Advocate
General with Mr.J.S.Rana,
Assistant Advocate General.
P.S.Rana, Judge.
ORDER:Present petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant bail relating to FIR No.64 of 2014 dated 8.5.2014 registered under 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 2Sections 302, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian .
Penal Code at Police Station Barmana District Bilaspur HP.
2. It is pleaded that petitioner is innocent and petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is pleaded that there is no direct or indirect evidence of connecting the petitioner with alleged commission of crime.
It is further pleaded that investigation of case is completed and investigating agency did not require personal custody of rt the petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner is only bread earning member of his family. It is further pleaded that brother of petitioner and deceased were married without consent of the parents and they were disowned by the family. It is further pleaded that petitioner was involved in unnecessary criminal litigation without any evidence against the petitioner. It is further pleaded that deceased had herself placed on fire. It is further pleaded by petitioner that most of material witnesses already stood examined by prosecution. It is further pleaded by petitioner that other female co-accused already enlarged on bail and petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail on the concept of parity.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 3Prayer for acceptance of bail petition filed under Section .
439 Cr.P.C sought.
3. Per contra police report filed. There is recital in the police report that deceased Anjana Kumari wife of Kamal Kumar was teacher in Oxford School Barmana of and she was preparing herself for going to school between 8.00 to 8.45 a.m. on dated 8.5.2014. There is further recital in the police report that deceased and her rt husband Kamal Kumar used to reside separately from accused persons. There is further recital in the police report that mother-in-law Smt. Ram Pyari father-in-law Sh. Balak Ram and brother-in-law Sh. Vijay Kumar who are residing in the upper portion of the house came down and started abusing to deceased Anjana Kumari and her husband Kamal Kumar. There is further recital in the police report that Balak Ram father-in-law of the deceased Anjana Kumari threw gallon of kerosene oil upon the body of deceased Anjana Kumari and other co-
accused namely Vijay Kumar and Ram Pyari caught hold husband of deceased so that husband of deceased could ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 4 not save his deceased wife Anjana Kumari from burnt .
injuries. There is further recital in the police report that after pouring the entire gallon of kerosene oil upon the body of deceased Anjana Kumari co-accused Balak Ram lit fire with match box upon body of deceased Anjana of Kumari. There is further recital in the police report that deceased Anjana Kumari sustained 90% burnt injuries and there is further recital in the police report that rt husband of deceased Sh. Kamal Kumar also sustained injuries. There is further recital in the police report that after registration of case site plan was prepared and burnt clothes of deceased were took into possession vide seizure memo. There is further recital in the police report that co-accused Balak Ram retired from Police Department and he also tried to cause disappearance of evidence. There is further recital in the police report that deceased was referred to IGMC Hospital Shimla. There is further recital in the police report that on dated 24.6.2014 deceased died. There is further recital in the police report that as per post mortem report deceased ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 5 died as a result of septicemic shock 72% thermal injury .
case. There is further recital in the police report that relations between deceased and accused were not cordial because deceased married with Kamal Kumar against the consent of parents of Kamal Kumar. There is further of recital in the police report that eye witness of the instant case is Kamal Kumar and statement of Kamal Kumar was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
rt There is further recital in the police report that co-accused Ram Pyari and co-accused Vijay Kumar caught hold Kamal Kumar when co-accused Balak Ram threw kerosene oil upon the body of deceased and when co-accused Balak Ram lit fire with match box upon body of deceased. There is further recital in the police report that co-accused Ram Pyari already stood released on bail by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and there is further recital in the police report that challan already stood filed in the Court on dated 31.7.2014. There is further recital in the police report that if the applicant is released on bail then applicant will induce and threaten prosecution witnesses.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 6There is further recital in the police report that if the .
applicant is released on bail trial of the case will be adversely affected. There is further recital in police report that evidence of prosecution witnesses are under process.
Prayer for rejection of bail petition sought.
of
4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also rt perused entire records carefully.
5. Following points arise for determination in the present bail petition:
(1) Whether petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as alleged? (2) Final Order.
Finding upon Point No.1.
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 77. Another submission of learned Advocate .
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of testimony of PW1 Shashi Pal Sharma, PW2 Rajiv Kumar, PW3 Smt.Satya Devi and PW4 Kamal Kumar bail petition filed by petitioner be allowed is rejected being devoid of any of force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give finding upon the testimony of PW1 to PW4 at this stage. Court is of the rt opinion that if any findings are given upon the testimony of PW1 to PW4 the same would effect regular trial of the case.
Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to appreciate the testimony of PW1 to PW4 on merits in bail petition when prosecution evidence is under process before learned trial Court.
8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that co-accused Ram Pyari female already stood released on bail and on the concept of parity Vijay Kumar petitioner be also released on bail is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that there is special provision of bail to minors, female, sick and old age ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 8 persons. It is held that petitioner Vijay Kumar who is a male .
cannot seek bail on the ground of parity because special provision of bail in heinous criminal offence is not available to male. There is prima facie evidence on record that deceased Anjana Kumari aged 27 years was set on fire of when deceased Anjana Kumari was in her matrimonial house.
9. Another rt submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that deceased Anjana Kumari herself set on fire when she was in her matrimonial house cannot be decided at this stage and the same fact will be decided by learned trial Court when entire evidence of prosecution will be concluded and when learned trial Court will dispose of the case upon merits.
10. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is only bread earning member of his family and on this ground bail petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that petitioner is facing heinous and grave criminal charges of murder under Section 302 IPC. It is well settled law that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 9 criminal Court should not be guided by the sentiments but .
the criminal Court are under legal obligation to dispose of the criminal cases strictly in accordance with law and strictly in accordance with proof facts placed on record. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following of factors are to be considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) Character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the rt 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. It is held that keeping in view the gravity of criminal offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and keeping in view the fact that examination of prosecution witnesses are under process before learned trial Court it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on bail at this stage of the case. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then trial of the case will be adversely ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 10 effected. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released .
on bail at this stage of case then interest of State and general public will be adversely effected.
11. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that of if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage of the case then petitioner will induce or threat the prosecution witnesses rtis accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of Court that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage then petitioner will induce or threat prosecution witnesses. In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release petitioner on bail at this stage of case. Bail petition of the petitioner already stood rejected by Hon'ble High Court of HP on dated 31.12.2014 in Cr.MP(M) No.1324 of 2014 and there is no changed circumstance in the present case after rejection of bail petition by Hon'ble High Court. Hence point No.1 is answered in negative.
Point No.2(Final Order).
12. In view of the above stated facts bail petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP 11 1973 is rejected. Observation made hereinabove is strictly .
for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition and it shall not effect merits of the case in any manner. As the petitioner is in judicial custody learned trial Court will dispose of the case expeditiously in accordance with law.
of Bail petition is disposed of. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.
rt (P.S.Rana),
Judge.
August 5, 2015(R)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP
12
.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:41:21 :::HCHP