Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ram Lok vs State Of Hp on 17 September, 2024
2024:HHC:8702 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024 a/w Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1693, 1702, 1705, 1812, 1926 & 1927 of 2024.
Reserved on : 12.09.2024 Announced on: 17.09.2024 __________________________________________________________
1. Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024 Ram Lok ...Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent __________________________________________________________
2. Cr.MP(M) No.1693 of 2024 Vikram Verma ...Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent __________________________________________________________
3. Cr.MP(M) No.1702 of 2024 Abhishek Verma ...Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent __________________________________________________________ 4. Cr.MP(M) No.1705 of 2024 Hira Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent __________________________________________________________ 5. Cr.MP(M) No.1812 of 2024 Vikal Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent ______________________________________________________
-2- 2024:HHC:8702 __________________________________________________________ 6. Cr.MP(M) No.1926 of 2024 Arjun Verma ....Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent ______________________________________________________ 7. Cr.MP(M) No.1927 of 2024 Surinder Thakur ....Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate, through video conferencing and Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, in person, in Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024.
Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Shroal, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1693, 1702 & 1705 of 2024.
Mr. Prem Singh Negi, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) No.1812 of 2024.
Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocate, in Cr.MP(M) Nos.1926 & 1927 of 2024.
For the respondent: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, in all the petitions.
For the complainant: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-3- 2024:HHC:8702 Ranjan Sharma, Judge Seven bail petitioners, namely, Ram Lok in Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024, Vikram Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1693 of 2024, Abhishek Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1702 of 2024, Hira Singh in Cr.MP(M) No.1705 of 2024, Vikal Kumar in Cr.MP(M) No.1812 of 2024, Arjun Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1926 of 2024 and Surinder Thakur in Cr.MP(M) No.1927 of 2024, have come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), originating from FIR No.63 of 2024, dated 09.05.2024, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as 'IPC] read with Sections 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as 'SC&ST'], registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, [H.P.].
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NO.1666 OF 2024 [RAM LOK VS. STATE OF HP]
2. Case set up by Learned Counsel
-4- 2024:HHC:8702 Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate [who appeared virtually] assisted by Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, is that the bail petitioner [Ram Lok] belongs to Village Kayali, but is working in Forest Department of the State Government as a Forest Worker, in Forest Beat Patgehar in District Shimla. It is averred that bail petitioner additionally looks after the work of adjoining Mundaghat Beat and he performed his work diligently and resorted to action against people indulging illegal felling due to which, the people developed hatred and resentment against him. 2(i). It is averred that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, is innocent, as the complainant- victim [Sanjay Kumar] had consumed liquor in the afternoon on 08.05.2024 yet the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is further averred that one Shri Roop Singh Kanwar alias Joginder Singh had made a complaint against illicit felling on 09.05.2024 [Annexure P-1], but aforesaid complainant Roop Singh Kanwar alias Joginder Singh himself resorted to illicit felling against which bail petitioner had taken
-5- 2024:HHC:8702 against him, which is borne out from Annexure P-2. 2(ii). It is averred that no other FIR has been registered against bail petitioner. The petition further states that petitioner had filed an application for bail before this Court i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 05.07.2024, Annexure P-3 with directions to the petitioner to surrender. Against the dismissal orders the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) No(s).9347/2024, which was also dismissed on 22.07.2024, in following terms:-
" Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of the fact that the petitioner's interim bail was cancelled by the High Court he has not surrendered as per the impugned order dated 05.07.2024. We are not inclined to entertain this matter any further. The special leave petition is dismissed.
We make it clear that the dismissal of the special leave petition will not prejudice the petitioner's right to file a fresh application before the High Court."
While dismissing the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of SLP will not prejudice the petitioner's right to file a fresh
-6- 2024:HHC:8702 application before the High Court. 2(iii). The bail petitioner has furnished the undertakings before this Court that he will furnish personal bond and surety bond as may be directed by this Court. It is further averred that bail petitioner will not leave the jurisdiction of this Court and shall appear in the trial without fail and will not tamper with the evidence or cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons whatsoever who are acquainted with the facts of the case.
In the background of above facts and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP on 22.07.2024, the petitioner has prayed for bail in instant case.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NOS.1693 OF 2024 [VIKRAM VERMA VS. STATE OF HP] AND CR.MP(M) NO.1702 OF 2024 [ABHISHEK VERMA VS. STATE OF HP.
3. Case set up by Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, is that the bail petitioners [Vikram Verma and Abhishek Verma], is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and they have no connection with the
-7- 2024:HHC:8702 aforesaid offence. It is averred that there is no evidence to connect the petitioners with alleged offence. It is further averred that these petitioners were arrested by Police on 15.05.2024 and were granted interim bail by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 07.06.2024, but in view of the observations made by this Court on 05.07.2024 in case of Ram Lok [Supra], the bail applications filed by these petitioners were finally dismissed by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024.
3(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners again filed the bail applications [i.e. Cr.MP(M) Nos.1543 & 1545 of 2024] before this Court, which were also dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2024 with liberty to file the same at appropriate state. After the dismissal of the bail petition(s), the petitioners [Vikram & Abhishek Verma] surrendered on 20.07.2024. It is further averred that the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the petitioners have no previous history and now even Challan stands filed before the Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioners
-8- 2024:HHC:8702 have prayed for bail by way of the instant bail petitions.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NO.1705 OF 2024 [HIRA SINGH VS. STATE OF HP]
4. Case set up by Learned Counsel, Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, is that the bail petitioner [Hira Singh], is that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and the allegations are misconceived and concocted. It is stated that bail petitioner surrendered before the Police on 13.05.2024 and he was initially granted interim bail, but the same was rejected by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024. 4(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a bail application [i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1544 of 2024] before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2024. After dismissal of bail application, the petitioner, Hira Singh was arrested by the police on 26.07.2024. It is further averred that the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the petitioner has no previous history and the Challan stands filed before the Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioner
-9- 2024:HHC:8702 has prayed for bail by way of the instant bail petition.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NO.1812 OF 2024 [VIKAL KUMAR VS. STATE OF HP]
5. Case set up by Learned Counsel Mr. Prem Singh Negi, Advocate, is that the bail petitioner [Vikal Kumar], has been falsely implicated and the allegations are misconceived and concocted. It is further averred that petitioner was arrested by Police on 15.05.2024 and was granted interim bail, which was rejected by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024.
5(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a bail application [i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1542 of 2024] before this Court, which was dismissed on 16.07.2024. After dismissal of bail application, the petitioner surrendered before the Police on 20.07.2024. It is further averred that the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the petitioner has no previous history and now the Challan stands presented before the Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioner has prayed for bail in instant petition.
- 10 - 2024:HHC:8702 FACTUAL MATRIX IN CR.MP(M) NOS.1926 OF 2024 [ARJUN VERMA VS. STATE OF HP] AND CR.MP(M) NO.1927 OF 2024 [SURINDER THAKUR VS. STATE OF HP.
6. Case set up by Learned Counsel Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocate, is that the bail petitioners [Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur], is that the bail petitioners have been falsely implicated and they have no connection with the aforesaid offence. It is further averred that they have been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to connect the petitioners with alleged offence. It is further averred that these petitioners surrendered before Police on 11.05.2024 and 13.05.2024, whereafter they and were initially granted interim bail by Learned Special Judge, Shimla, but their bail applications were dismissed by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024. 6(i). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners again filed bail applications before this Court, which were also dismissed as withdrawn on 16.07.2024. After the dismissal of bail petitions the petitioners [Arjun Verma & Surinder Thakur] surrendered before the Police on 20.07.2024, in the instant case. It is further averred
- 11 - 2024:HHC:8702 that the prosecution story is highly doubtful and the petitioners have no previous history and now even Challan stands filed before the Court.
It is in this background, that the petitioner has prayed for bail in instant petition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:
7. Consequent upon the issuance of notice in instant petitions, the State Authorities have furnished separate Status Report(s) dated 24.08.2024 in cases of Ram Lok, Vikram Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh and Vikal Kumar.
7(i). So far as the bail petitioners [Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur] are concerned, this Court issued notice on 02.09.2024 with directions to the State Authorities to file Status Report, whereafter the Status Report dated 12.09.2024, was furnished, which was taken on record and copy thereof was supplied to learned counsel for the bail petitioners.
In this background, on receipt of Status Report(s), as referred to above and with the consent of Learned Counsel(s) for the parties, all seven bail
- 12 - 2024:HHC:8702 applications originating from same FIR i.e. FIR No.63 of 2024, dated 09.05.2024, are taken up for final disposal together, at this stage.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN STATUS REPORT(S):
8. State Authorities have furnished the Status Reports dated 24.08.2024 [in cases of Ram Lok, Vikram Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh and Vikal Kumar] and likewise the Status Report dated 12.09.2024, has been filed in cases of Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur.
8(i). Status Report(s) filed by the State Authorities, are pari materia, which indicate the sequence of events, leading to the registration of FIR No.63 of 2024 dated 09.05.2024 and the factual matrix thereafter.
8(ii). Status Report(s) reveal that once Sanjay Kumar, a resident of Village Patgehar Maluthi, lodged a complaint under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. on 09.05.2024, narrating that on 08.05.2024 at about 9:00 p.m., he received a call from Arjun Verma and Ram Lok asking him to come to main road for
- 13 - 2024:HHC:8702 accompanying them to Village Patgehar. As soon as the complainant came to the main road, wherefrom Arjun and complainant-Sanjay Kumar went to the house of Ram Lok, where, it was alleged that the complainant [Sanjay Kumar] was abused and given beatings by Ram Lok, Arjun Verma, Surinder Thakur and Vikal Kumar. The complaint stated after giving beatings at house of Ram Lok, he was then taken to a place near the house of Hira Singh, where he was again abused and again taken to Nullah [rivulet]. The complainant [Sanjay Kumar] stated that near the Nullah [rivulet] he was made to drink liquor; under was poured on him, casteist remarks were made against complainant by these persons. It was further stated due to the beatings the complainant suffered injuries on arms, right leg, back and face also. 8(iii). In view of the complaint, the FIR was registered on 09.05.2024 under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 & 34 of IPC and after receipt of MLC and based on the opinion of Medical Expert(s) and the injuries Sections 325 and 307 of IPC were added to
- 14 - 2024:HHC:8702 FIR along with Sections 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC&ST Act.
8(iv). Consequent upon the registration of FIR, the Police swung into action and started the investigation. Thereafter, on 11.05.2024, petitioner- accused Arjun Verma was arrested and bamboo stick (Danda) was recovered at his instance. 8(v). On 13.05.2024, Hira Singh another accused, before his arrest, applied for interim bail, which was granted to him, which was ultimately cancelled by Learned Special Judge on 12.07.2024 and then by this Court on 16.07.2024, as referred to above, whereafter he was arrested on 26.07.2024. 8(vi). During investigation, on 15.05.2024, Police arrested three other accused, Abhishek Verma, Vikram Verma and Vikal Kumar and sought remand and they were made to undergo medical examination. 8(vii). Investigation conducted by the police reveals that petitioner-accused Ram Lok informed other accused-petitioners, namely, Surinder Thakur, Arjun Verma and Hira Singh that complainant
- 15 - 2024:HHC:8702 [Sanjay Kumar] had submitted complaint of illicit felling being made by them.
8(viii). Status Report(s) indicates that criminal antecedents of Arjun Verma and Abhishek Verma [bail petitioner herein] are not up to mark, as both have been involved in one FIR each i.e. FIR No.34 of 2024 and FIR No.110 of 2020, respectively. However, the Status Report(s) further indicates that the Police has completed the investigation and Challan has been presented before the jurisdictional Court on 05.07.2024. Status Report(s) further indicates that matter is now fixed for 13.09.2024, for Consideration on Charge before the Learned Special Judge, Shimla.
In view of the averments made in Status Report(s), Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for bail to petitioners herein.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT:
9. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court, in these proceedings, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, have put in appearance on behalf of
- 16 - 2024:HHC:8702 complainant [Sanjay Kumar]. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, by and large supports the case of prosecution and has opposed the bail on the ground, that accusation is serious in nature and therefore, the bail petitioners may not be enlarged on bail.
10. Heard. Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, Mr. Prem Singh Negi and Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Learned Counsel(s) for the petitioners, and Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Learned State Counsel as well as Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for the complainant.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED:
11. Before dealing with the present bail petitions, application, it is necessary to have a recap of provisions of Sections 307, 342, 323, 504, 506, 201, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(e), 3(2)(va) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989:-
"307. Attempt to murder.--
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
- 17 - 2024:HHC:8702 murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.--
When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.-- Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace:-
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation :- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
- 18 - 2024:HHC:8702 which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc :-
and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, if a capital offence.--
shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life.-- and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--
and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of
- 19 - 2024:HHC:8702 the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine.
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-
(e) forcibly commits on a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any act, such as removing clothes from the person, forcibly tonsuring of head, removing moustaches, painting face or body or any other similar act, which is derogatory to human dignity;
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:-
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; (va) commits any offence specified in the Scheduled, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine."
12. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for pre-arrest or for post arrest bail-regular bail is to be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed
- 20 - 2024:HHC:8702 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regulating grant of bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496; which has been reiterated in the case of P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exists which lead to believe or point out towards accusation ; and these parameters for regular bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01.
12(i). While dealing with the case for grant of bail, the three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh,
- 21 - 2024:HHC:8702 (2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para 25 that the nature of the crime has a huge relevancy, while considering claim for bail.
12(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under:
"11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including:
(i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence;
(ii) The severity of punishment;
(iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not;
(iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or
try to approach the victims/
- 22 - 2024:HHC:8702
witnesses;
(v) Likelihood of accused absconding
from proceedings;
(vi) Possibility of accused tampering
with evidence;
(vii) Obstructing or attempting to
obstruct the due course of justice;
(viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail;
(ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge;
(x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence.
12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the Cr.PC, as the case may be."
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM OF PETITIONERS:
13. Notwithstanding, the dismissal of earlier Bail Applications of the petitioner, Ram Lok by this Court on 05.07.2024 [Annexure P-3] and the orders dated 22.07.2024 [Annexure P-4] passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.9347 of 2024;
and the dismissal of bail applications of all other
- 23 - 2024:HHC:8702 petitioners i.e. Vikram Verma, Abhishek, Hira Singh, Vikal Kumar, Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur, by Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 12.07.2024 and withdrawal of subsequent Bail Applications from this Court on 16.07.2024; yet, this Court, proceeds to examine the claim of the petitioners for bail, in instant petition(s) here-in-under.
14. After taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, the statutory provisions, the mandate of law as referred to above; and the material on record, including the Status Report(s), this Court is of the considered view, that all the bail petitioners Ram Lok, Vikram Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh, Vikal Kumar, Arjun Verma and Surinder Thakur, are entitled to be enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:
14(i). Material on record, including the Status Report dated 27.08.2024 [in case of Ram Lok, Vikram Verma, Abhishek Verma, Hira Singh and Vikal Kumar] and the Status Report dated 02.09.2024 [in case of Arjun and Surinder Thakur] do not reveal any
- 24 - 2024:HHC:8702 reasonable grounds, at this stage, to believe the accusation against the bail petitioners.
14(ii). The prosecution story leading to registration of FIR indicates that the complainant [Sanjay Kumar] was abused, was given beatings at the house of Ram Lok; whereafter complainant was taken to a place near the house of Hira Singh; wherefrom the complainant was allegedly taken to a place near the Nullah (Gwai Nullah) and was alleged that his clothes were removed;
urine was poured; caste related utterances-remarks were made; whereafter he was left in the Nullah during the night at 11:00 p.m. on 08.05.2024.
In the background of the prosecution story the factum as to whether the complainant was abused;
or threatened; was given beatings and whether injuries were so caused when, the complainant [Sanjay Kumar] was himself drunk at relevant time. Further, factum as to who was the aggressor relating to accusation under Sections 307, 323, 506, including accusation under Section 34 the common intention, revealing community of purpose and common design or
- 25 - 2024:HHC:8702 pre-arranged plan has to be inferred but are necessarily to be proved during trial, in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and others versus State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 521, in the following terms:-
"26. Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design or pre-arranged plan. However, this does not mean that co-perpetrators should have engaged in any discussion, agreement or valuation. For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be pre-arranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact as it requires prior meeting of minds. In such cases, direct evidence normally will not be available and in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. This requires an inquiry into the antecedents, conduct of the co- participants or perpetrators at the time and after the occurrence. The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co-assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack etc. are all
- 26 - 2024:HHC:8702 relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are satisfied. We must remember that Section 34 IPC comes into operation against the co-perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence. A person is liable for his own acts. Section 34 or the principle of common intention is invoked to implicate and fasten joint liability on other co-participants."
14(iii). Even, the accusation under Section 342 IPC regarding wrongful confinement needs to be tested, examined and proved during trial, when, the complainant [Sanjay Kumar] and Arjun both consumed liquor on 08.05.2024 and thereafter the complainant went along with Arjun to the house of Ram Lok, at Village Kayali, without any material on record to show that he was taken despite resistance to house of Ram Lok. In these circumstances, the accusation of wrongful confinement, appears to be highly improbable and which even otherwise, needs to be tested, examined and proved during the trial.
- 27 - 2024:HHC:8702 14(iv). So far as, accusation under Section 3(1)(e) of
SC&ST Act, the fact as to whether petitioners have indulged in forcibly removing clothes of complainant [Sanjay Kumar] and the accusation under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC& ST Act is borne out is a matter to be examined, tested and proved during the trial.
Taking into account the material on record as borne out from this Court is of the considered view that no reasonable grounds exists, to believe the accusation against the bail petitioners, at this stage. Moreover, once the complainant, Sanjay Kumar was himself drunk on 08.05.2024, being the aggressor then, the accusation is yet to be examined, tested and proved during the trial.
NOTHING RECOVERABLE FROM BAIL
PETITIONERS:
15. The Status Reports filed by the State Authorities do not indicate that any recovery is still attributable to the petitioners in the aforesaid incident.
- 28 - 2024:HHC:8702 NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING TAMERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC:
16. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed any material on record, at this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the petitioners are likely to tamper with evidence or may cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities can be safeguarded, at this stage by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order.
NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING
OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO
THRAWTLING JUSTICE:
17. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed any material on record, at this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the petitioners may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities are taken care of, by imposing
- 29 - 2024:HHC:8702 stringent bail conditions as mandated herein, in the instant case.
NOTHING ADVERSIAL REGARDING REPITITION OF OFFENCE AFTER BAIL:
18. The Status Reports filed by State Authorities have not expressed any apprehension of repetition of offence after release on bail, which, still is being taken care of, by imposing stringent bail conditions in later part of this bail order.
INCARCERATION AND TRIAL TO TAKE TIME- ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION:
19. Learned Counsel(s) Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Mr. Manoj Pathak, Mr. Prem Singh Negi and Mr. Rajiv Sirkeck, Advocates, submit that the FIR in the instant cases was registered on 09.05.2024 and petitioners have suffered custody for about three months now [since 15.05.2024] till day and even Investigation is complete and the Challan-Final Police Report stands filed by the police before the Learned Special Judge, Shimla on 05.07.2024 and the matter is fixed for consideration on charge on 13.09.2024.
- 30 - 2024:HHC:8702 19(i). Since the bail petitioners herein, have
suffered incarceration for about three months now and even the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view, that further detention of the petitioners, shall certainly amount to implicating the petitioners on mere accusation or conjectures at this stage. The action of the State Authorities is dehors the object of bail, which cannot be punitive nor preventative. Prolonging imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content, which certainly amounts to depriving or curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioners enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
19(ii). While reiterating the principle that the bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can be deprived of his personal liberty on mere accusation and an accused is to be treated as innocent in eyes of law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan
- 31 - 2024:HHC:8702 Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in following terms:-
"11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail isneither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under:
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantialpunitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction oncriminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the
- 32 - 2024:HHC:8702 interest of the society in general.In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v.
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under:
"We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law.
- 33 - 2024:HHC:8702 Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police."
19(iii). While dealing with the concept of bail and personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, held as under:-
"18 Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
- 34 - 2024:HHC:8702 19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.
21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside."
19(iv). While dealing with a matter relating to prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial and right of liberty to be sacrosanct right and while deprecating that bail is not to be withheld as punishment so as to operate dehors the principle that bail is rule and jail is an exception, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate
- 35 - 2024:HHC:8702 Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No8781 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024, has held as under:-
"49. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.
50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.
52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:
"10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote:
"What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial""
53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our
- 36 - 2024:HHC:8702 experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".
55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.
56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.
57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant."
19(v). While adjudicating the claim for bail, even under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS Act], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No_______of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.10778 of 2024], titled as
- 37 - 2024:HHC:8702 Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter has mandated that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions, in following terms:-
"13. We had also reiterated the well-established principle that "bail is the rule and refusal is an exception". We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions."
Keeping in view the factual matrix that no reasonable grounds exist, against the petitioners coupled with the fact that the bail petitioners have suffered incarceration for about three months now [since 15.05.2024] and the Challan stands filed on 05.07.2024, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, in these circumstances, further detention shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of petitioners on mere accusation or conjectures, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial in accordance with law. Detention of petitioners can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the
- 38 - 2024:HHC:8702 petitioners to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial of bail shall certainly violate the principle that "bail is rule and jail is an exception". Further, once the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and considerable time is yet to be taken for completion of trial, then, in view of the mandate of law in the cases of Guddan alias Roop Narayan,Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Manish Sisodia and Kalvakuntla Kavitha [supra], the petitioners deserves to be released on bail.
STATUS REPORT(S) INDICATING PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS:
20. Perusal of Status Report(s) indicates that one FIR each, has been registered against the bail petitioner Arjun Verma i.e. FIR No.34 of 2024 dated 20.03.2024 and one FIR against Abhishek Verma i.e. FIR No.110 of 2020, dated 04.05.2018 and in view of past criminal antecedents the bail has been opposed by Learned State Counsel and complainant's counsel also.
20(i). So far as the accusation against bail
- 39 - 2024:HHC:8702 petitioner Arjun Verma in FIR No.34 of 2024, dated 20.03.2024 is concerned, the same cannot be the basis for curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has mandated in Prem Prakash versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270, pendency of another accusation (FIR) cannot be the reason to deny the bail, in following terms:-
"46. The Investigating Agency have also referred to ECIR No. 4 as a criminal antecedent. A reference was made to ECIR No. 4 of 2022 pertaining to illegal Stone Mining and related activities in Saheb Ganj, Jharkhand, where the petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2022 and the prosecution complaint was filed on 16.09.2022. Insofar as the bail pertaining to ECIR No. 4 of 2022, which is pending in this Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 691 of 2023, at the after notice stage, the merits of the bail in that case will be independently examined. Having examined the facts of the present case arising out of ECIR No. 5 of 2023 and in view of the findings recorded hereinabove, we do not think that the appellant can be denied bail based on the pendency of the other matter. We say so in the facts and circumstances of the present case as we do not find any justification for his continued detention. The appellant has already been in custody for over one year. The Trial is yet to commence. There is a reference to one more ECIR which the Investigating Agency refers to in their
- 40 - 2024:HHC:8702 counter, namely, ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 but nothing is available from the record as to whether any proceedings have been taken against the appellant.
49. In the result, we pass the following order:-
(i) The appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is quashed and set-aside.
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to release the appellant on bail in connection with ED case No. ECIR No. 5 of 2023 on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.5 lakh with 2 sureties of the like amount."
20(ii). In addition to this, so far as petitioner- Abhishek Verma [in FIR No.110 of 2020, dated 04.05.2018], is concerned; the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, a copy of judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.27-S/7 of 2020, whereby the petitioner Abhishek Verma, stands acquitted on 29.08.2023.
Taking into account the facts and the mandate of law, in case of Prem Prakash (supra), this Court is of the considered view, that mere registration of an Earlier FIR and the proceedings, if any, cannot be made the basis for denying bail, which shall amount to incarceration by way
- 41 - 2024:HHC:8702 of punishment on mere surmises-conjectures- accusations, which are yet to undergo the test of veracity and its examination and proof during the trial. Thus, the previously lodged FIR, if any, cannot be the sole basis to deny bail in instant case.
CONCLUSION:
21. For the reasons stated above and after taking into account, the entirety of facts and circumstances; and the material on record as borne out from the Status Report(s); and the mandate of law, as referred to above, all the petitions are allowed, and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioners [Ram Lok in Cr.MP(M) No.1666 of 2024, Vikram Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1693 of 2024, Abhishek Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1702 of 2024, Hira Singh in Cr.MP(M) No.1705 of 2024, Vikal Kumar in Cr.MP(M) No.1812 of 2024, Arjun Verma in Cr.MP(M) No.1926 of 2024 and Surinder Thakur in Cr.MP(M) No.1927 of 2024], in FIR No.63 of 2024, dated 09.05.2024, under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(e), 3(2)(v) &
- 42 - 2024:HHC:8702 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, [H.P.]., subject to the observance of the following conditions:-
(i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release the bail petitioners, on furnishing their personal bonds to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lac] each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court concerned;
(ii) Petitioners shall abide by all other conditions, as may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, if any, in view of this order;
(iii) Petitioners shall neither involve themselves nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Any involvement or abetting shall entail the withdrawal of concession in terms of this order;
(iv) Petitioners shall disclose their functional E-Mail IDs/WhatsApp numbers and that of their sureties to the Learned Trial Court ;
(v) Petitioners shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without prior information of the Court;
(vi) Petitioners shall join the trial without fail, except on grounds permissible in law ;
(vii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence in any manner;
(viii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or the witnesses;
(ix) It is clarified that violation of any of the conditions imposed hereinabove, shall
- 43 - 2024:HHC:8702 entail cancellation of bail automatically;
and
(x) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any condition(s), if necessary, in the facts and circumstances, at any time herein-after.
22. The observations made in this judgment shall not be construed, in any manner, as an indictive of findings, for or against either of the parties herein, for the purpose of investigation or trial, which shall proceed independently, in accordance with law.
23. Petitioners are permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court.
The instant petitions are allowed and all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 17, 2024 (Shivender) Digitally signed by TARUN MAHAJAN TARUN DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 887aba774dfe8f4f3e95a41c7aa2abacb4ecee8f82efd8f56ec39f8e6b44 2b68, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= 3ff6ebe501e8d7c8d73d0e5a5294bacca3f198d7d66b105bbf50717967 3109f5, CN=TARUN MAHAJAN MAHAJAN Reason: I am the author of this document Location: 12345678 Date: 2024.09.18 13:30:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0