Himachal Pradesh High Court
Yuv Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 5 March, 2020
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) NO.2135 of 2019
Decided on: 05.03.2020
Yuv Raj ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr.
Advocate, with Ms. Anaida
Kuthiala, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumesh Raj, Mr. Dinesh
Thakur, Additional Advocate
Generals, Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia,
Assistant Advocate General.
Inspector/ SHO Ranjan Sharma,
P.S. Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.
present in person.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Status report filed, which is ordered to be taken on record.
By way of this petition, filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for his enlargement on bail in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 2.
case FIR No.157 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018, registered under Sections 342, 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Protection and Atrocities Act, registered at
2. to Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. Record demonstrates that earlier an application filed by present petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. i.e. bail application No. 112 of 2018, titled as Yuv Raj Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, was dismissed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., vide order dated 05.12.2018, which is appended with this petition as Annexure P1. Thereafter, petitioner had approached this Court by way of Cr.MP(M) No.817 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2019 by accepting the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the said petition of grant of liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again at a subsequent stage.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that a perusal of the investigation would demonstrate ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 3 .
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this entire episode and he is not at all guilty of the offences alleged against him. He has further argued that it is the coaccused, against whom otherwise also, finger is pointed out as per the investigation carried out by the prosecution. He further submits that bail before jail is the settled principle of law and at this stage, petitioner has a right to be presumed that he is innocent. He submits that in case during the course of trial, petitioner is found to be guilty then the law will take its own course, but simply because a First Information Report stands registered against him, it does not permits the State to curtail his personal liberty. He has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention: (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 40 titled as Sanjay Chandra Versus Central Bureau of Investigation; (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 22 titled as Datram Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; and (2018 (2) Shim LC 933 titled as Shafi Mohammad Versus State of Himachal Pradesh.
::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 4.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that primarily there is no change in the factual matrix as it existed at the time when similar applications filed by the present petitioner were dismissed inter alia by the Court of learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on merit and by this Court as withdrawn.
He has further submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender and more than five FIRs otherwise stood registered against him implicating him of having committed heinous crimes. He has further argued that as of now statements of prosecution witnesses are to be recorded and in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, there is each and every probability that he might influence the witnesses which may hamper the independent advancement of the trial. He has further argued that undoubtedly bail before the jail is the general principle of law, but taking into consideration the heinousness of the offences which stands alleged against the petitioner in the present case, this case does not deserves grant of bail in favour of the petitioner. He has argued that ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 5 .
Hon'ble Supreme Court in more than one pronouncement has from time to time reiterated that at the time of consideration of an application for grant of bail, the Court has to see (a) the gravity of the offence alleged, (b) possibility of the petitioner interfering in the course of investigation/trial in case of release on bail and (c) whether there is a possibility that in case of grant of bail the petitioner may again indulge in the kind of offences which are alleged in the F.I.R. On these basis, he submits that keeping the previous track record of the petitioner in mind, this petition deserves dismissal.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while rebutting the submissions so made by learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the First Information Reports which earlier stood registered against the petitioner, have resulted in his acquittal and petitioner was not charged for having committed heinous offences as was evident from the Sections under which the FIRs were lodged.
6. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General. I have ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 6 .
gone through the status report and have also perused the record which has been produced by the State.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner stands charged for commission of offences under Sections 342, 323 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Protection and Atrocities Act. There are two accused in the F.I.R. and the other accused is behind bars. Undoubtedly, whether or not the petitioner is guilty of offences alleged against him is a matter of trial. However, in the case of grant of bail, the Court inter alia has to take into consideration the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner in the F.I.R as well as the circumstances in which the offence is stated to have been committed. This Court does not wishes to make any comment on the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the investigation does not points out any finger with regard to the involvement of the petitioner with the alleged crime or it is borne out from the investigation that it is the other accused who perhaps may be guilty of the alleged ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 7 .
offences. The Court is making this observation because any reference made in this regard by the Court on the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner may have an effect on the trial.
8. Be that as it may, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., who earlier dismissed a similar application filed by the present petitioner on 05.12.2018, demonstrates that the application was rejected by the learned Special Judge inter alia on the ground that in the case of release of the petitioner on bail, witnesses acquainted with the fact may be exposed to inducement, threat or promise by the bail petitioner. Learned Court also observed that statement of the witnesses acquainted with the fact were yet to be recorded and taking into consideration the offences alleged against the petitioner, the application was not fit to be allowed.
9. The circumstances which weighed with the learned Special Judge when the said application was dismissed, are existing even today. Though the challan stands filed before ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP 8 .
the appropriate Court of Law for the purpose of trial, however, statements of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded.
Therefore, possibility of the witnesses who are acquainted with the facts being exposed to inducement, threat or promise still looms large. It is a matter of record that there were at least five FIRs registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 323, 325, 506, 504, 354 of the Indian Penal Code etc.
10. Therefore, taking a holistic view of the entire factual matrix before this Court at this Stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner because this Court feels that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage may act as an impediment in the course of fair trial. Accordingly, this bail petition is dismissed.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 05, 2020 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 20:23:54 :::HCHP