Himachal Pradesh High Court
Maan Singh vs State Of H.P on 6 January, 2023
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2793 of 2022 and connected matters.
Decided on: 6th January, 2023 ____________________________________________________________ .
1. Cr.MP(M) No. 2793 of 2022 Maan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent _____________________________________________________________
2. Cr.MP(M) No. 2794 of 2022 Prem Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 2795 of 2022 Balak Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.
Inspector/SHO, Kewal Singh, Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, present with record.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -2-Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge These three bail petitions arise out of FIR No.27 of 2022, dated 12.05.2022, registered under Sections 341, 323, .
325, 504, 507 & 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. Being connected and arising out of the same FIR, these petitions are being considered and decided vide this common judgment.
2. The FIR pertains to an incident, which statedly occurred on 12.05.2022.
2(i) The complainant Rajinder in his statement recorded under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC hereinafter), described the incident as under:-
His family was running a vegetable shop alongside their residential home in Dhabas market. His family had sold land to Balak Ram (co-accused and petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.2795 of 2022). Balak Ram had constructed his house over the said land. There was an ongoing land dispute between the two families. On 12.05.2022, complainant's ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -3- younger brother Pradeep Kumar went to Balak Ram's house and asked him to raise construction within the limit of his owned land and that he should not transgress into the land .
of others. This infuriated Balak Ram. He alongwith his wife Santoshi, Maan Singh (co-accused & petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 2793 of 2022), Prem Singh (co-accused & petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.2794 of 2022) caught hold of Pradeep Kumar and gave him beatings using stick, iron rod and fist and leg blows. Because of the impact, Pradeep Kumar fell in a roadside drain and suffered injuries. The complainant Rajinder with the help of Chet Ram and Mela Ram, who were present at the spot, rescued Pradeep Kumar. The complainant's elder brother Kewal Ram also reached the spot after sometime. Even at that stage, Balak Ram, Santoshi, Maan Singh and Prem Singh kept on abusing them and their family members. They also threatened them with dire consequences. The complainant further stated that the victim Pradeep Kumar had been taken to Civil Hospital Chopal for treatment.
2(ii) The police personnel reached Civil Hospital Chopal for investigating the matter. The victim Pradeep ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -4- Kumar was found under treatment there. The Medical officer did not find Pradeep Kumar in a position to give his statement. The victim Pradeep Kumar was referred to Indira .
Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla for further treatment.
2(iii) The above events led to registration of FIR under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2(iv) While investigating the matter, the respondent on 13.05.2022, obtained the caste certificates of the members of both the families. Victim Pradeep Kumar and his family was found to be belonging to Scheduled Caste, whereas, accused persons belong to Rajput Caste. This led to incorporation of Section 3(1)(s) of the Act in the FIR.
2(v) Statement of eye-witness Chet Ram was also recorded by the investigating agency, who allegedly stated that he and Mela Ram had saved the victim Pradeep Kumar from the beatings of the accused persons. He also stated that Rajinder and Kewal Ram (brothers of the victim) had reached the spot subsequently.
2(vi) On 14.05.2022, statement of Rajinder was recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. He reiterated his earlier ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -5- statement recoded under Section 154 Cr.PC. Additionally, he is stated to have disclosed that stick used for beating his brother Pradeep Kumar was carried by Santoshi, whereas .
iron rod was used by accused Maan Singh. He further stated that accused Balak Ram had hit his brother Pradeep Kumar on his head with the stone. He has also stated that he had inadvertently omitted to mention the use of objectionable words regarding their caste by the accused persons in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
2(vii) In an anticipatory bail petition moved by the accused persons, ad-interim bail was allowed to them by the Court of learned Sessions Judge. However, after incorporation of Section 307 IPC in the FIR, the accused persons surrendered themselves in the Court on 18.05.2022.
They withdrew their bail petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.PC. Consequently, all of them were arrested on 21.05.2022.
2(viii) Status report records that the victim Pradeep Kumar was referred from C.H. Chopal to IGMC, Shimla on 12.05.2022. He statedly suffered from "severe HI+® FTP SDH+ communicated #(R) FTP region". He remained admitted ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -6- in IGMC Shimla from 13.05.2022 to 21.06.2022. "He was transferred from IGMC Shimla to CH Chopal on 21.06.2022 so that he could remain under aseptic condition and his care .
regarding tracheotomy tube Ryle's tube, foley's catheterization, suctioning could be done properly. He is disoriented to time, place & person. He has GLS of 6 i.e. E4V1Mi, thus is in comatosed stage. He is suffering from Quadriplegics (Quadriplegias) as well. He is not fit for statement as he is in comatosed stage." The status report referring to MLC dated 12.05.2022 reflects the following injuries inflected upon the victim Pradeep Kumar: -
"I. Laceration 1.5 cm and 4 cm on right supra-orbital region of skull on fragment visible.
II. Fracture skull on frontal bone corresponding to above mentioned injury on right supra orbital region.
III. (3) Laceration 2x1.5 cm site on the scalp. IV. B/L Eye ecchymosis bluish color with swelling (periorbital edema) with eyes shut tight. In my opinion, after reviewing the exhibits sent to me the above mentioned injuries sustained by Pradeep Kumar are possible if inflicted by similar weapons of offence.
(2) Laceration and (2) fracture skull of frontal bone could be due to blunt force trauma from a heavy object similar to Exhibit 1a/Exhibit 2a.
(3) Laceration 2x1.5cm or scalp could be possible due to blunt force trauma from an object similar to Exhibit ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -7- 1a."
2(ix) It has also come in the status report that the investigation carried out by the respondent did not reveal use .
of objectionable caste words by the accused persons, hence, Section 3(1)(s) of the Act was deleted from the FIR.
2(x) The status report also mentions that the families of victim and accused persons had been involved in the land dispute for quite some time. Previously also, compromises were entered into between the two families about the dispute regarding the same land on 22.07.2005, 17.02.2016 and 05.02.2018.
2(xi) A demarcation got conducted by the investigating agency through the Revenue Department on 06.06.2022, demonstrates that the accused Balak Ram had constructed his house within the limits of his owned land. However, one side of the roof of his house was found to be projected outside the boundary of his owned land.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated at the instance of those having inimical relations with the petitioners and their family members. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is an attempt to malign their reputation. There is ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -8- no evidence against the petitioners. The police case is false and cooked up. The victim himself was the aggressor whose family after having sold 4 biswas of land on the road head to .
the petitioner Balak Ram, had been repeatedly claiming Balak Ram of having encroached upon the land in excess of 4 biswas. The victim had trespassed into the premises of the petitioner Balak Ram and threatened him with dire consequences. Balak Ram, his wife Santoshi, his Carpenter Maan Singh, his brother Prem Singh, present on the spot had confronted the victim Pradeep Kumar. He thereafter fled away from the premises. A false case has been foisted upon the petitioners. Learned counsel also submitted that the co-
accused Santoshi was enlarged on bail vide order dated 02.09.2022, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.1641 of 2022. There is no allegation that she had ever threatened the prosecution witnesses, victim or the family of the victim. There is no allegation that she had ever tried to influence the investigation. Learned counsel prays for enlarging the petitioners on bail and submitted that in case of enlargement of the petitioners on bail, they will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court and they will ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS -9- not influence the investigation, prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Resisting the bail petitions, learned Additional .
Advocate General highlighted the nature of injuries inflicted upon the victim. It was submitted that the victim is still under treatment at CH Chopal and the Medical officer at CH Chopal has not yet declared the victim fit for recording his statement. This fact was disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. r Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that after recording the statement of the victim Pradeep Kumar, supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.PC will be presented in the Trial Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and ongoing through the status report as well as the record produced by the investigating officer, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case for their enlargement on bail at this stage. This is on account of the following prima-facie reasons:-
4(i) It appears at this stage that the victim had himself entered into accused Balak Ram's house on 12.05.2022. He statedly asked accused Balak Ram to raise construction ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS
- 10 -
within the limit of his owned land and not to encroach upon land belonging to victim's family. The scuffle took place between the accused persons on one side and the victim .
Pradeep Kumar on the other side. The injuries inflicted upon the victim Pradeep Kumar even if are to be construed as a result of beatings allegedly given by accused persons, cannot be said to be the result of any pre-mediated plan and prima facie appear to be a spot development.
4(ii) The record shows that the families of two factions have been earlier also involved in the dispute regarding the same land. Compromises were executed between them regarding the same parcel of land on 22.07.2005, 17.02.2016 and 05.02.2018.
4(iii) Demarcation of the land got conducted by the investigating agency through the Revenue Department on 06.06.2022, showed that the construction had been raised by accused Balak Ram within the limits of his land. His roof on one side, however, was found to be projecting beyond the limits.
4(iv) The investigating agency, during investigation did not find use of objectionable words by the accused persons.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS- 11 -
Allegations levelled by the victim's family members in this regard have been found to be incorrect.
4(v) The challan in this case was presented on .
07.07.2022. Supplementary challan has also been presented on 13.10.2022. Trial is stated to be underway. It is not in dispute that as of now, statements of six witnesses have been recorded, whereas four witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. Significantly, witness Chet Ram, who had statedly witnessed the entire incident, has been given up by the prosecution. For purpose of adjudication of these bail petitions, some reference to the statements of witnesses without deep digging the same, is being made The eye-
witness Smt. Reema w/o Sh. Sunil Dutt Sharma, stated that no incident as alleged by prosecution took place in her presence. The another eye-witnesses Mela Ram was examined who stated that he had asked the victim Pradeep Kumar to mutually decide the dispute with the accused Balak Ram regarding projections of the roof. But the victim Pradeep Kumar insisted that the projections should not be extended beyond ½ foot from the lintel, whereas, accused Balak Ram had insisted on extending the projection by 1 foot as ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS
- 12 -
according to him, there was sufficient land for the same.
Whereafter, victim Pradeep Kumar slapped accused Balak Ram. According to this eye-witness the brothers of victim .
Pradeep Kumar were not at the spot at the time of incident, but had reached there afterwards. Prima-facie it seems that he has supported the version of accused persons. During his cross-examination, he has stated that the victim Pradeep Kumar had rushed towards the road and hit himself against the stone and rocks. That he suffered injuries because of the impact. I have also considered the statements of Rajinder, Dayanand and Kewal Ram the brothers of victim Pradeep Kumar, which appear to be in variance with each other and differ on material aspects with the statements of independent witnesses. All these statements and evidence have been referred to only for deciding the bail petitions. Their real effect has to be considered by the learned Trial Court. The statements of independent witnesses stand recorded by the learned trial Court. According to the respondent, thirteen official witnesses including doctors remain to be examined in the trial. Statement of victim is also yet to be recorded.
Taking into consideration the above aspects, the ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS
- 13 -
mode and manner of commission of alleged offences by the petitioners, the investigation carried out by the respondent, the evidence recorded during trial, the conduct of the accused .
persons and period of about seven months spent by the accused persons in custody, in my considered view, the petitioners have made out a case for their enlargement on bail, at this stage. The status report does not show any criminal track record of the petitioners. The petitioners are local residents of district Shimla, therefore, their presence can be ensured in the trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, further detention of the petitioners is not warranted.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-
Five Thousand only) each with one local surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned, subject to the following conditions: -
(i). The petitioners shall join and cooperate the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.
(ii). The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS
- 14 -
manner whatsoever.
(iii). The petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(iv). The petitioners shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the .
Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.
(v). Petitioners shall not threaten or intimidate the victim and his family members in any manner whatsoever.
(vi). The petitioners shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.
(vii). Petitioners shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about their places of residence during bail and trial.
Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter.
Petitioners shall furnish details of their Aadhar Cards, Telephone Numbers, E-mail, PAN Cards, Bank Account Numbers, if any.
In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter.
Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS- 15 -
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
January 6, 2023
R.Atal
r to
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 20:34:24 :::CIS