Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 12.08.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 August, 2024
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2024:HHC:6957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CrMP(M) No. : 1604 of 2024 Reserved on : 12.08.2024 Decided on : 14.08.2024 Sukhpal Singh @ Laddi ...Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the applicant : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kshitij Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge.
Applicant-Sukhpal Singh @ Laddi has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No. 115 of 2023, dated 15th April, 2023, registered with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., under the provisions of 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2024:HHC:6957 Sections 363, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
2. According to the applicant, he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in this case, without there being any evidence about his involvement in the alleged crime, for which, he has been arrested, in this case.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the investigation, in the case, is complete and nothing is to be recovered from him, by the Investigating Agency.
4. According to the applicant, he belongs to a respectable family, having deep roots in the society, as such, there is no apprehension of his absconding or fleeing from the course of justice.
5. The applicant has earlier tried his luck, by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however, his bail application has been dismissed, vide order, dated 16th September, 2023. Thereafter, he has also moved bail application, being CrMP (M) No. 2631 of 2023, 3 2024:HHC:6957 before this Court, which has been dismissed, vide order, dated 28th November, 2023.
6. Now, the applicant has filed the present application, on the ground of changed circumstances, as, according to him, the investigation, in the present case, is complete and the police has submitted the report, under Section 173 (2) CrPC, before the Competent Court of Law.
7. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
8. On the basis of the factual position, as mentioned in the application, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application and release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 15 th April, 2023, complainant-Hem Raj, produced a complaint before In charge, Police Post Dabhota, disclosing therein, that his son-Jatin was called by one Parminder Singh on 15 th April, 4 2024:HHC:6957 2023, at about 06.30 p.m. He made his son Jatin to sit in the vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-12M-2688, owned by one Laddi, s/o Mahinder Singh (applicant). Said Laddi drove his vehicle towards Punjab.
9.1 According to the complainant, his son, was not picking up the phone, as such, he has prayed that his son Jatin may be searched.
9.2. On the basis of the said complaint, after conducting formal inquiry, the police registered the FIR, under Section 363 IPC and the investigation was handed over to HC Avtar Singh No. 39, IO, Police Post Dabhota. 9.3. During investigation, the CCTV footage of the cameras installed at Police Post Dabhota were checked and it was found that vehicle No. HP-12M-2688, was driven by its driver, from Dabhota towards Punjab, at about 07.20 p.m., upon which, HC Diwan Chand, alongwith other police official, had gone towards Bharatgarh, Bunga Sahib, Kiratpur side, in order to search Jatin. The tower location of the mobile number of Jatin, i.e. 62300 87911, was obtained from Cyber Cell, Baddi, which was found to be near Gurudwara Bunga Sahib, Punjab.
5 2024:HHC:6957 9.4. On the basis of the tower location of the mobile number of Jatin, he was searched, whereupon, it was found that applicant took Jatin in vehicle No. HP-12M- 2688, which was found in the canal at Bunga Sahib, Punjab, however, applicant Laddi, after his car fell in the canal, came out from the canal and was detained in Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, whereas, no clue was found with regard to Jatin. The name of the accused was found to be Sukhpal Singh @ Laddi (applicant). He was brought to Police Post Dabhota.
9.5. During investigation, the scooty of Jatin was found parked at Bada Basot near the tube-well of Parminder Singh @ Pammi. The said scooty, bearing registration No. HP-12J-9903, was taken into possession by the police.
9.6. The applicant was arrested on 16 th April, 2023. During investigation, it was found that the accused (applicant) had driven his vehicle into the canal in order to kill Jatin, as such, Section 364 IPC was added in the FIR. 9.7. On 16th April, 2023, the IO got vehicle No. HP- 12M-2688, lifted out of the canal. During search of the said 6 2024:HHC:6957 vehicle, two mobile phones, one empty tumbler and one half consumed bottle of liquor were found, which were taken into possession. Search was got conducted for Jatin, in the canal, through divers, but, no clue was found. 9.8. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to SI Neelam Kumar. During investigation, the accused (applicant) has identified the place, from where, he had kidnapped Jatin and made him to sit in his vehicle. Thereafter, the accused (applicant) also identified the place, where, he had driven his car into the canal. 9.9. On 21st April, 2023, the dead body of Jatin was found in a canal near Laadal Behrampur Bridge, Ropar, which was identified by his paternal uncle. The samples of water from the place, where, the dead body was found, were also collected. The dead body was sent for post mortem. On the basis of the above facts, Section 302 IPC was added, in this case.
9.10. During the course of investigation, Parminder Singh, who, at the instance of applicant, had called Jatin, was associated and his statement was recorded, under 7 2024:HHC:6957 Section 164 CrPC, by producing him, before the Court of learned ACJM, Nalagarh.
9.11. It was also found during the investigation that the accused (applicant) was in love with the sister of deceased Jatin and in this regard, he wanted to talk to Jatin. Due to this reason, he had requested his friend Parminder Singh to call Jatin, upon which, Jatin, alongwith his cousin Gurnam Singh, had come to meet Parminder Singh, but, on the way, on the asking of applicant, Parminder Singh had requested Jatin to come alone. When Jatin reached there, the applicant made him to sit in the car. Thereafter, the applicant directed Parminder Singh to alighten down from the car. 9.12. It is the further case of the police that when Parminder Singh did not find Jatin, then, he called him, upon which, he was informed by Jatin that applicant is driving the vehicle at a very fast speed and not stopping the same. Thereafter, Parminder Singh made repeated calls, but, the same were not attended by Jatin. Thereafter, Parminder Singh had informed the father of the deceased, upon which, the matter was reported to police at Police 8 2024:HHC:6957 Post Dabhota, upon which, the police had started searching for Jatin and applicant-Laddi. 9.13. During their search for Jatin and applicant- Laddi, the police had noticed that vehicle No. HP-12M- 2688 was parked on the berm of the canal. As soon as father of Jatin and other persons had stopped their vehicle near the vehicle of the applicant, he drove his vehicle at a very high speed, into the canal. When father of Jatin and other persons reached there, then, they noticed Jatin in the vehicle. The said vehicle had started drowning, upon which, Jatin screamed, while requesting his father to save him. Thereafter, father of Jain had asked Jatin to try to come out of the vehicle and reach up to the roof, so that, he could save him, upon which, Jatin apprised him that he could not jump, as, his leg had been caught. During this conversation, the vehicle had drowned. After 3-4 minutes, applicant came out from the canal, but, Jatin could not come out.
9.14. It is the further case of the police that in case, the applicant had not caught Jatin from his leg, then, in that eventuality, Jatin could have been saved.
9 2024:HHC:6957 9.15. Lastly, it has been stated in the status report, that after the completion of investigation, the report, under Section 173 (2) CrPC, has been submitted before the Competent Court of Law, whereupon, the cognizance has been taken; the charges have been framed and the case is now fixed on 31st August, 2024, for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 9.16. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the bail application.
10. The role, allegedly, played by the applicant, in the commission of the offence, will be proved during the trial and the bail application cannot be rejected as a matter of punishment.
11. No criminal history of the applicant has been mentioned in the status report, nor, has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General.
12. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant, has placed on record the photo copy of order, dated 19th June, 2024, passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of which, the charges, under Sections 363, 364 and 302 IPC, have been framed, against the accused 10 2024:HHC:6957 (applicant) and the case is now fixed for 31 st August, 2024, for recording the evidence of prosecution witness. The relevant portion of order, dated 19th June, 2024, passed by the learned trial Court, is reproduced, as under:
"Upon consideration of the report of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, I consider that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 302 IPC. He is liable to be charged for the said offences. Ordered accordingly.
Charge for the aforesaid offences framed, to which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Let the case be listed for Prosecution evidence on 31.08.2024 on which date PW at Sr. No. 1 be summoned. Accused be produced on the said date."
13. The above order has been placed on record, by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, to contend that in near future, the chances of conclusion of the trial, against the applicant, are not so bright.
14. After perusing the aforesaid order, passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is satisfied that considering the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution, the chances of conclusion of the trial against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright, as such, no 11 2024:HHC:6957 useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period, as, pre- trial punishment is prohibited under the law.
15. The applicant is permanent resident of Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., as such, it has also not been apprehended that in case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail, he may not be available for the trial.
16. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
17. Consequently, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 115 of 2023, dated 15 th April, 2023, registered with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 363, 364 and 302 IPC, on his furnishing bail bonds, in the sum of ₹ 50,000/-, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:
a) The applicant shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly 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;
12 2024:HHC:6957
b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) The applicant shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and
d) The applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.
18. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application.
19. It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant.
20. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Kanda, through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.
21. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Kanda, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent of 13 2024:HHC:6957 Jail, Kanda, is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.
22. Before parting with, it is appalling to note that despite the instructions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma versus State of Bihar, reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 507; and State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh and others, reported in (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 667, as well as, by this Court in CrMP (M) No. 2628 of 2023, titled as Tejender Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, the learned trial Court has not adhered to the provisions of Section 309 CrPC, as well as, Section 346 of the BNSS.
23. The provisions of Section 309 CrPC, read as under:
"309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. - (1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under sections 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, 14 2024:HHC:6957 section 376DA, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA or section 376DB, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.
Provided also that -
(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party 15 2024:HHC:6957 or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders, as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-
chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.
Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused."
24. It is also profitable to reproduce the provisions of Section 346 of the BNSS, as under:
"346. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. - (1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be continued from day to day basis until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the 16 2024:HHC:6957 commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Court shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.
Provided also that -
(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(b) where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(c) the fact that the advocate of a party is engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(d) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his advocate is not present or the party or his advocate though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders, as it 17 2024:HHC:6957 thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-
chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.
Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused."
25. Interestingly, the instructions were circulated to all the District and Sessions Judges in the State, by the Registry of this Court, vide e-mail, dated 4 th January, 2024. Vide letter, dated 6 th January, 2024, the said instructions were sent to the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
26. The right to speedy and fair trial has been held to be an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case, titled as Dharmendra Kirthal versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 368. Relevant paragraph 30 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
18 2024:HHC:6957 "30. Keeping the aforesaid enunciation in view, we shall presently proceed to deal with the stand and stance of both the sides. The first submission which pertains to the denial of speedy trial has been interpreted to be a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. In Kartar Singh [Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 899] , the majority, speaking through Pandian, J., has expressed thus: (SCC p. 638, paras 85-86) "85. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial. This right has been actuated in the recent past and the courts have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. In fact, lot of cases are coming before the courts for quashing of proceedings on the ground of inordinate and undue delay stating that the invocation of this right even need not await formal indictment or charge.
86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy 19 2024:HHC:6957 trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
(self emphasis supplied)
27. Prima facie, it appears that the instructions, issued by this Court, which have duly been circulated, have not been adhered to, by the learned trial Court, in the present case, that is why, only one prosecution witness has been summoned for 31st August, 2024, that too, in a case, where the accused is in custody.
28. Hence, Registrar General of this Court is directed to collect the information from all the Sessions Divisions and submit a detailed report, with regard to the criminal trials, in which, the charges have been framed, after 4th January, 2024, in order to ascertain as to whether the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have been complied with or not, as non- compliance of the said directions amounts to violation of right to speedy trial, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
29. In addition to this, the State, through Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is also directed to submit the compliance report, regarding 20 2024:HHC:6957 the directions, issued in CrMP (M) No. 2628 of 2023 (supra).
30. For this purpose, list the matter on 23rd September, 2024.
( Virender Singh ) Judge August 14, 2024 ( rajni ) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2024.08.14 14:24:35 IST