Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kesari Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 March, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
( 2025:HHC:6019 ) ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MP (M) No. 279 of 2025
Reserved on : 07.03.2025
Decided on : 13.03.2025
Kesari Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by ASI Ramesh KumarIII, Police Station, Gohar, District Mandi.
Virender Singh, Judge ApplicantKesari Devi, has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), with a prayer to release him on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No.41 of 2024, dated 13.04.2024, registered, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 325, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), with Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. According to the applicant, she has been arrested, in a false case and at the time of alleged incident, she was neither present on the spot, nor, has played any role, as, deceased has fallen down and sustained injuries.
3. It is the further case of the applicant that the investigating agency could not collect any evidence, on the basis of which, any role can be attributed to the applicant. In this regard, she has relied upon the medical report, as according to the applicant, the said report also suggests that the injuries received by the deceased were not due to any sharp/blunt weapon.
4. According to the applicant, as per the medical report, the deceased died due to septicemic shock secondary to blunt trauma sustained to head region.
5. Investigation, in the present case, is stated to have been completed, as the police has filed the charge sheet on 11.02.2025. Now, nothing is stated to be recovered from the applicant, nor, at her instance.
3 ( 2025:HHC:6019 )
6. As per the applicant, the trial against her will take sufficient long time, as such, no useful purpose would be served, by keeping her in judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.
7. The applicant has also tried her luck, by moving similar applications, before learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, however, her applications were dismissed, vide orders, dated 16.11.2024 and 02.01.2025.
8. The applicant, has given certain undertakings, for which, she is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released, on bail, during the pendency of the trial.
9. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate appearing for the applicant, has prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the applicant may kindly be released on bail, during the pendency of trial.
10. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report disclosing therein, that on 13.04.2024, complainant Jabna Chauhan has submitted a complaint through email, mentioning therein that on 12.4.2024, when mother of the complainant was on her way to 4 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) Parwara, in order to mourn the death of someone and when, she was crossing the fields, situated beneath the house of the complainant, then, Suresh Kumar and his wife Kesari Devi and their sons had attacked on her mother Dharmi Devi. They had inflicted the blow with Shovel and with sharp edged weapon, as well as, with the help of stones.
10.1. After inflicting the injuries, her mother was thrown away into the gorge. When, they were sure that the mother of the complainant had died, they had gone to Keyolidhar market and called the members of Panchayat and other persons. They had tried to show that the mother of the complainant had fallen into the gorge. 10.2. The incident had happened at 10.00 a.m., whereas, the complainant came to know about this fact at 12.45 p.m., in the noon, and till then a lot of blood had oozed out from her head. The complainant took her mother firstly to Bagsyad hospital, from where, she was referred to Ner Chowk Hospital.
10.3. Since, her condition was critical, as such, she was referred to IGMC Shimla. They reached at IGMC 5 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) Shimla at 12.00 midnight. She has been admitted in the ICU.
10.4. According to the complainant the condition of her mother was serious and she was fighting for her life. 10.5. Lastly, the complainant has stated that the land, where, the incident had taken place, is owned by them, however, Suresh and his family members want to usurp the same. They had also put pressure upon them to transfer it to them. When, the complainant party had refused for the same, then, they had started quarreling with them. Not only this, they had also threatened the mother of the complainant to cut her with the help of Darat (big sickle). As such, she has requested that stern action be taken against them.
10.6. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the FIR, in question and police machinery swung into motion.
10.7. Initial investigation was conducted by HC Virender Kumar No.130, who has visited the spot and at the revelation of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Parwara Jitender Kumar, he has prepared the spot map.
6 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) Photography was done and the physical evidence, which was found on the spot was also taken into possession. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Inquiry from the accused persons was also conducted. 10.8. On 16.04.2024, the team of RFSL also visited the spot. On the basis of the medical opinion, the injury on the person of injured, was found to be grievous in nature, as such, Section 325 IPC was added, in this case. 10.9. On 22.04.2024, the I.O. contacted the doctor at IGMC, however, as per the opinion of the doctor, the injured was not found fit for making statement. Treatment summary was obtained, upon which, the doctor has given the following opinion: "After going through required documents that is original MLR No 16/24 dated 12/4/2024 summary of b ougnal MLR No 16/24 dated 12/4/24, original Treatment 1GMC Shimla Department of neurosurgery & No. 202404108571 and requisition letter number 572/5A dated 22.4.2024 The opinion is Number (1) Injury number I mentioned is said MLR that is coceration of 1416 cm present on Right partial region mentioned about 1012 cm above right car. Fracture of underneath skull been visible. Active bleeding present. Sustained due to fall cannot be ruled out. However injury no 01 mentioned is said MLR could not be possible by sharp weapon Number 02 injury no 01 mentioned in said MLR is dangerous to life."
7 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) 10.10. On the basis of the said opinion, Section 307 IPC was added, in this case. Thereafter Dy.SP, (headquarter/SO), Mandi, has transferred the investigation of the case, to SHO, Police Station Gohar. On 12.5.2024, the instruments used for making the passage were taken into possession. Those weapons were shown to the doctor, who has prepared the MLC of Dharmi Devi, for opinion. 10.11. On 15.10.2024, information was received from the doctor at IGMC Shimla, regarding the death of Dharmi Devi, upon which, the I.O. got conducted the postmortem examination of dead body of Dharmi Devi and the doctor has opined in the postmortem examination report, as under: "In our opinion deceased died due to Septicomic shock secondary to blunt trauma sustained to head region"
10.12. On 17.10.2024, the accused persons were called. Initially, all the three had given their consent to undergo polygraph and BEOS test, however, later on, they had resiled from their consent, for the said test. 10.13. On 12.11.2024, witness Leela Devi was associated, who has disclosed that when Dharmi Devi was 8 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) on her way to Parwara and reached near the house of Naresh Kumar, then, after 10 minutes, Kesari Devi and Bishani Devi were found moving quickly towards their house. On seeing Leela Devi, Kesari Devi had disclosed that Dharmi had fallen and when she had gone to the spot, Dharmi Devi was found lying there and Naresh Kumar was talking with someone on phone. The said witness also disclosed that she has requested all the three accused to inform the family members of Dharmi Devi and took her to hospital for treatment. Thereafter, this witness had gone to Parwara.
10.14. On 16.11.2024, accused Naresh Kumar @ Suresh Kumar, Kesari Devi and Ghanshyam, had moved applications, under Section 438 Cr.PC, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, however, their applications were dismissed. Thereafter, they were arrested on 16.11.2024 at 9.15 p.m. 10.15. On 20.11.2024, the expert from RFSL, Mandi visited the spot and recreated the crime scene. Report of the same is still awaited. The investigation is now stated to be completed.
9 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) 10.16. It is the case of the police that when accused Suresh Kumar and Kesari Devi (applicant), were constructing the passage, then, Dharmi Devi, came there and told them to stop the work, upon which, a scuffle took place between Kesari Devi and Dharmi Devi. During that process, Suresh Kumar had inflicted a blow with hoe on the head of Dharmi Devi. Consequently, Dharmi Devi fell down in 20 feet deep gorge.
10.17. Thereafter, both the accused Suresh Kumar and Kesari Devi left the spot. They neither took her to hospital nor informed her family members, intentionally.
11. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application, on the ground that the applicant is a clever person, who had initially given the consent for her polygraph test, but did not appear for the said test. Thereafter, they had moved applications for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi. As such, it has been apprehended that in case, the applicant is released on bail, she may coerce the witnesses and she may not be available for the trial.
10 ( 2025:HHC:6019 )
12. According to the Police, since, the house of the applicant/accused is near to the house of the deceased, as such, there is lot of resentment and in case, she is released on bail, it may lead to any untoward incident.
13. As per the status report, the investigation, in the present case, is complete as, in para 14 of the status report, it has been mentioned that chargesheet has been filed, which is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohar, for 18.03.2025, for checking of copies of challan.
14. Except the present case, no other case is stated to have been registered against the applicant and the alleged recovery as per the status report was made at the instance of accused Naresh Kumar. The alleged fatal blow on the head of Dharmi Devi, was also attributed to Suresh Kumar.
15. Even otherwise, the bail application cannot be rejected, as a matter of punishment, as, pretrial punishment is prohibited under the law and punishment can only be imposed, after the full fledged trial, by competent Court of law.
11 ( 2025:HHC:6019 )
16. No doubt, a valuable human life has been lost, but, the allegations, which have been levelled against the applicant, would be proved during the course of trial.
17. At the time of deciding the bail application, detailed discussion about the evidence so collected by the prosecution should be avoided, as, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution, as well as, that of the accused (applicant).
18. Accused (applicant) was arrested on 16.11.2024 and the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Sessions and from this fact, an inference can be drawn that the chances of commencement and conclusion of the trial against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping her in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period.
19. Admittedly, the person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion i.e. daughter of the deceased, was not the eye witness.
20. The legislature, in its wisdom has added the proviso to Section 480 (ii) of BNSS, according to which, the 12 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) Court may release a person on bail, if such person is a child or is a woman or is sick or infirm.
21. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.41 of 2024, dated 13.04.2024, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 325, 506 and 34 of the IPC, registered with Police Station, Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohar, District Mandi, H.P.
22. This order of release, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : "a) Applicant shall make herself 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;
b) Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
c) Applicant shall not make any inducement,
threat or promises to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as 13 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Office; and
d) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court."
23. Any of the observations made herein above 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.
24. It is made clear that the respondentState is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions is found to be violated by the bail applicant/petitioner.
25. The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, through email, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the eprison software.
26. In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Mandi. The Superintendent Jail, District Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, is further directed that if the 14 ( 2025:HHC:6019 ) 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.
( Virender Singh ) Judge March 13, 2025(ps) Digitally signed by RAJNI Date: 2025.03.13 16:31:33 IST