Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravinder Singh Rana vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 15 May, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 528 of 2015.
Date of decision : 15.5. 2015 ____________________________________________________________ Ravinder Singh Rana .....Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. .....Respondent.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. N. S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr. Rupinder Singh, Addl. Advocate Generals.
ASI Ram Gopal, I/O, P.S. Chopal, Distt.
Shimla, present with records.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No. 20 of 2015 dated 30.4.2015 registered at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. under Section 302 IPC.
2. The respondents have produced the records of the investigation and have also filed the status report.
3. The prosecution case as revealed from the records is that the complainant was informed by his uncle that a shepherd had hit a stone at Sanju (deceased). He reached the road where Sanju had ____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:03 :::HCHP 2 been brought. Sanju was uttering some words which were not .
understandable. Sanju was having an injury on the head and a piece of stone was stuck to his skull and his head was profusely bleeding.
Sanju was taken to hospital in the vehicle of one Durga Singh and simultaneously the police was also informed. The complainant was instructed by his uncle to ensure that shepherd does not run away and, therefore, he alongwith his brother Suresh, one Ramesh S/o Sh. Jeet Ram, went in search of shepherd in the Jungle and across a nullah, saw two persons sitting in a shed. On inquiry, it transpired that the name of one of the person was Ravinder Singh Rana and he was the same person who had hit the stone at Sanju. Ravinder informed them that they were going to graze sheep, then they told them not to run away since the police was to arrive. Thereafter the complainant alongwith two other persons came back to the house of Mast Ram. At about 11 O'Clock, Mast Ram informed the complainant over phone to keep hold of the shepherd so that he did not flee. Whereupon the complainant alongwith two other persons again went to the Jungle, where they found shepherds grazing the cattle. After reaching the place, the petitioner Ravinder Rana was caught hold by them and taken to the house of Mast Ram where they waited for the police nd was ultimately arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that even if the prosecution story is taken to be true on its face value, even then no offence is made out.
5. Whereas, on the other hand, Mr. V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously opposed the bail ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:03 :::HCHP 3 application by alleging that the petitioner is an accused in a serious .
offence and bail ought not to be granted in such circumstances.
6. The prosecution story if taken as it is, creates a reasonable doubt in mind of the Court as regards one of more ingredients of the offence particularly mens rea of the accused.
Admittedly the accused is the resident of Uttrakhand and could have conveniently run away especially when the complainant and two other persons had earlier accosted the petitioner. No doubt, it is an unfortunate case where a young boy has lost his life but only on account of this fact, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his liberty and ordered to be detained in custody pending completion of the trial as this would cause more harm or hardship to the petitioner.
7. Even otherwise, the guilt of the accused can only be established in a full fledged trial and at present taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, it would be travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioner. No doubt, the accusation against the petitioner is grave and serious in nature, but then a balance has to be struck between the rights of the petitioner and rights of the police to carry out free and fair investigation.
8. On the basis of the records, it cannot be said that the petitioner would in any manner impede the course and cause of justice or that the petitioner may in any manner hamper the free, fair and full investigation. Since one of the object of refusal of bail is to secure the presence of the accused and I have no reason to doubt that the petitioner would flee from justice. Even otherwise stringent conditions for securing his presence for the purpose of trial etc. can always be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:03 :::HCHP 4 imposed. Therefore, I find this to be fit case where the discretion of bail .
ought to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 20 of 2015 dated 30.4.2015 registered at Police Station, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. under Section 302 IPC, on following terms and conditions:
(i) That the petitioner shall furnish bail bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal/Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P.
(ii) That the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency.
(iii) That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, 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 to any police officer;
(iv) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(v) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court;
(vi) That the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.
(vii) In case the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal / Jubbal, District Shimla, is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:03 :::HCHP 5 communication No. HHC.VIG/ Misc. Instructions/93-IV. 7139 dated .
18.3.2013.
10. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.
Petition stands disposed of.
Copy 'dasti'.
May 15, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(GR) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:11:03 :::HCHP