Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lakhwinder vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No. 52 of 2025 Reserved on : 18.03.2025 Date of Decision: 25th March 2025.
Lakhwinder ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondent/State. : Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 150 of 2022, dated 27.10.2022, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 27 of Arms Act. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police have filed the charge sheet before the Court. The petitioner has been in custody for more than two years. The prosecution has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 ) examined 05 witnesses out of 61 witnesses cited by it. The matter was listed before the learned Trial Court on 19.02.2025 and 20.02.2025. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information that the dead body of Harbhajan Singh was lying in the bushes. The police reached the spot. The informant-Balwinder Singh made a complaint that Harbhajan Singh had gone towards the main road in his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12E-2721 on 26.10.2022 at 8:45 pm, however, he did not return. The attempts were made to contact him on his mobile phone but the mobile phone was found to be switched off. Search was made for him and his dead body was recovered. He was stabbed by a sharp-edged weapon. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. Police checked CCTV footage and found that the deceased was talking to Amandeep Singh and Inderpreet Singh. The police arrested them. Subsequently, petitioner Lucky@Harry@Lakhwinder Singh was arrested. He got recovered a gandasi. The petitioner's clothes were also recovered by the police. These were sent to FSL and blood was found on the gandasi. However, the blood did not yield any DNA for 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 ) analysis. The petitioner has committed a heinous offence and the matter is now listed for prosecution evidence on 29.5.2025.
3. I have heard Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Karan Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The gandasi stated to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner yielded highly degraded DNA and there is nothing to show that it was used for committing the murder. There is undue delay in the progress of the trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this consideration as well; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The prosecution evidence is continuing. Releasing the petitioner on bail can affect the fair trial and the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses, therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 )
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under at page 783: -
"Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 ) Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under: -
"12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:
"14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression "any condition ... otherwise in the interest of justice" has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose "any condition" for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail." (Emphasis supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570, this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose "any condition" on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: --6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 ) "15. The words "any condition" used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed:
"4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial." (Emphasis supplied)
9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479.7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 )
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The status report shows that the petitioner got recovered one gandasi containing the blood. It yielded highly degraded DNA, which could not be analysed. However, the fact that the gandasi contained human blood and the body of the deceased contained multiple injuries by sharp-edged weapon prima facie, establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime.
12. It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial. This submission is not acceptable. The copies of the order sheets of the learned Trial Court show that the charge was framed on 14.05.2024. Statement of one witness each was recorded on 14.10.2024, 04.12.2024 and 05.12.2024. The matter is now listed for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses on 29.05.2025. The fact that the Court had recorded the statements of four witnesses within seven months shows that all attempts are being made to complete the evidence. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground of delay. However, if it is found that there is a persistent delay in the disposal of the case against the 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:7726 ) petitioner and the delay is not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner can always approach the Court to seek the bail.
13. The prosecution evidence is continuing and there is a force in the submission of Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State that releasing the petitioner on bail will adversely affect the fair trial because the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses. Further keeping in view the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner and that a capital punishment can be imposed, the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage.
14. No other point was urged.
15. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
16. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
25th March,2025 Judge
(Saurav Pathania)