Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) Nos. 356 of 2024 a/w Cr.MP (M) Nos. 357 & 358 of 2024 and Cr. MP (M) Nos 359, 360 & 467 of 2024 .
RESERVED ON : 24.04.2024 ANNOUNCED ON : 24.05.2024 ___________________________________________________________
1. Cr.MP(M) No.356 of 2024 Sanjeev Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent r to
2. Cr.MP(M) No.357 of 2024 Lakhwinder Singh Versus .......Petitioner State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No.358 of 2024 Sanjeev Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent AND 4. Cr.MP(M) No.359 of 2024 Amit Saini .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent 5. Cr.MP(M) No.360 of 2024 Hoshiar Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -2- 6. Cr.MP(M) No.467 of 2024 Satish Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent .
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner (s): Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate [in all the petitions].
For the respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General [in all the petitions].
For the complainant: Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate [in all the petitions] for complainant.
SI Pawan Kumar, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, present with records [in all the petitions].
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Nine accused, out of which three are in custody, and six bail petitioners herein, namely Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurdev Singh]; Lakhwinder Singh;
Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurnam Singh] ; Amit Saini, Hoshiar Singh and Satish Kumar [Up-Pradhan of Village and Post Office Bhattiyan, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan] have come up before this Court, seeking pre-arrest 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -3-bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [referred to as 'Cr.P.C.], originating from FIR No 14 of 2024, dated 20.01.2024, registered at Police Station, .
Nalagarh, District Solan [H.P.], under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code [referred to as 'IPC'].
Since all these six bail petitions have originated from FIR No 14 of 2024, dated 20.01.2024, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these petitions are taken up for hearing/disposal together.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The case set up by Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Imran Khan, learned counsel, is that one Sandeep Kumar, son of Shri Rajinder Singh, R/o Village and Post Office, Bhattiyan, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan [H.P.], had submitted a complaint on 21.01.2024 to Head Constable Rakesh Kumar, No. 42 that on 20.01.2024, while the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and his two friends Neema and Kulbir Singh {first ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -4- cousin}, were attending a marriage function-reception of another friend, Neeraj at Village Bhattiyan along with villagers and relatives [including ladies] and .
were having food at about 09:00 PM on 20.01.2024 then, persons, namely, Amit, Rajiv, Hoshiar Singh, Jitender Singh @ Honey and Kalveer Singh @ Kiru {including bail petitioners No 4 and 5 supra} entered the marriage spot and reached inside the tent, in their open Jonga vehicle, bearing registration No HP-
12K-9792, where the ladies were dancing on the DJ. On entering the marriage spot, in said Jonga, the bail petitioners started making obscene remarks and resorted to continuous dippering of head beams of aforesaid Jonga. On this, the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and his two friends requested them not to resort to such unwarranted activities. After persistent requests, bail petitioners left the marriage spot but by threatening the complainant and his friends with dire consequences.
2(i). After leaving the marriage reception, these ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -5- bail petitioners, parked their Jonga vehicle, HP-12K-
9792 about 50 Meters away from the marriage spot, near the house of Rajiv [one of the bail petitioners], .
where a Fortuner having registration No HP-12G-
3535, was parked on the road. At about 10:00 PM on 20.01.2024, as soon as the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] along with his friends Neema and Kulbir Singh were on way home from the marriage reception and were about to cross the road [where Fortuner and Jonga were parked] suddenly, the complainant-
Sandeep Kumar was attacked with a Drat by one of the accused, Rajiv (bail petitioner, herein} and his friend-Neema was attacked with a Sword by accused, Kalveer Singh {presently in custody} along-with other accused, including six bail petitioners.
Due to this, all three persons i.e. the complainant-Sandeep Kumar and his two friends Neema and Kulbir sustained injuries and they fell on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, the villagers who were in marriage party-reception [at a distance ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -6- of 50 meters away], rushed to the scene of occurrence and thereafter, all the accused, including the bail petitioners, fled away from the scene of occurrence, .
by entering the house of one of the bail petitioner, Rajiv, which was adjoining the scene of occurrence.
2(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel, has stated that the bail petitioners have been falsely implicated and there is no evidence against the bail petitioners. It is further averred that investigation is over and nothing incriminating is found against the bail petitioners. It is averred that nothing is to be recovered by the Investigating Agencies and custodial interrogation of the bail petitioners is not required. However, the bail petitioners have given an undertaking that they shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.
In this background, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel has stated that FIR No 14 of 2024 dated 20.01.2024, under Sections ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -7- 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 506 IPC has been wrongly registered against the bail petitioners.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT .
3. Upon issuance of notice in Cr.MP (M) No 356 of 2024, Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurdev Singh] versus State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.MP (M) No. 357 of 2024, Lakhwinder Singh @ Billa versus State and Cr.MP (M) No 358 of 2024, Sanjeev Kumar [son the Co-ordinate r Benchto of Shri Gurnam Singh] vs State of Himachal Pradesh, of this Court directed the State Authorities to file status report and granted the interim bail on 01.03.2024, to these three bail petitioners.
3(i). So far as other three bail petitioners are concerned i.e. bail petitioners in Cr.MP (M) No 359 of 2024, in re; Amit Saini ; and in Cr.MP (M) No. 360 of 2024, Hoshiar Singh and in Cr MP(M) No 467 of 2024, Satish Kumar, [who had earlier filed Cr. MP(M) No 355 of 2024 but was withdrawn with liberty], the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -8- State Authorities to file the status report, but no interim was granted to these three petitioners.
3(ii). Matters were then listed on 04.03.2024 .
[except Cr.MP (M) No 467 of 2024] when the Status Report dated 03.03.2024 filed by the State Authorities was taken on record and copy thereof was furnished to Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioners.
3(iii). On 05.03.2024, when these matters were listed [except Cr.MP (M) No.467 of 2024], Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel, informed the Court that he has filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for placing on record the judgment passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, rejecting the earlier bail petition and had an affidavit for placing on record additional documents.
3(iv). On 07.03.2024, all the bail petitions [except Cr.MP (M) No 467 of 2024] were again listed when, the State Authorities sought time to file the reply to the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and also to ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS -9- the affidavit placing on record additional documents.
3(v). All these matters were listed on 13.03.2024 [except Cr.MP(M) No. 467 of 2024] when, Respondent-
.
State Authorities filed an affidavit dated 12.03.2024, pointing out additional facts. On 18.03.2024, the State Authorities filed the reply to the application and the affidavit filed by learned counsel for bail petitioners.
3(vi). The matters were then listed on 19.03.2024 when, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel, prayed for time to file rejoinder to the reply filed by the State Authorities on 18.03.2024 when, at the request of learned counsel for the complainant /objector, the matters were adjourned for 09.04.2024 when, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Senior Counsel, prayed for an adjournment and the same were directed to be listed on 18.04.2024. Thereafter, the matters were taken on 23.04.2024 and again on 24.04.2024, when, the matters were finally heard.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES:
4. During the course of proceedings before this ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 10 -
Court, the State Authorities have filed the Status Report dated 03.03.2024, wherein, the prosecution story is that one Sandeep Kumar, son of Shri Rajinder .
Singh, R/o Village Bhattiyan, submitted a complaint, narrating that on 20.01.2024, at about 9.00 PM, while he alongwith his friends, Neema and Kulbir Singh were participating in marriage function-reception of his another friend, Neeraj in Village Bhattiyan, in presence of local villagers, relatives and were having food at that time then the accused persons, namely, Amit Saini, Rajiv, Hoshiar Singh, Jitender @ Honey and Kalveer Singh @ Kiru [which included the bail petitioner No.4 herein], entered the marriage reception and reached inside the tent, in an open Jonga vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-12K-9792, where the ladies and relatives were present in the DJ party. On reaching the spot, the accused persons, resorted to obscene unwarranted acts and started dippering the head beams of said Jonga. On this, the complainant along with his friends Neema and Kulbir requested them not to ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 11 -
resort to such unwarranted activities. After persistent requests, the above named accused left the marriage spot by threatening the complainant and his friends .
with dire consequences. Thereafter, at about 10:00 p.m. on 20.01.2024, as soon as the complainant, Sandeep Kumar, along with his friends, Neema and Kulbir were on their way home, after attending the marriage function and had hardly reached 50 metres from the marriage scene, they saw the same Jonga, bearing registration No. HP-12K-9792 and the Fortuner bearing registration No. HP-12G-3535, having been parked on the road, at the main gate of the house of Rajiv, who is one of the bail petitioners. While the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] along with his friends, Neema and Kulbir were about to cross the road, from the front side of these vehicles, then, the complainant and his two friends were mercilessly attacked by the accused including, the present bail petitioners, namely, Amit Saini, Rajiv, Hoshiar Singh, Jitender @ Honey, Kalveer Singh, Satish Saini [Up Pradhan], R/o Village Bhattiyan ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 12 -
and Sanjeev @ Sanju, Lakhwinder @ Billa and another Sanju, residents of Village Basot, with Sword and Drat, due to which, all the three persons i.e. complainant .
and his two friends fell on the spot. Even one of the bail petitioners, namely, Rajiv Saini, is alleged to have resorted to firing in the air, at the relevant time.
It is further averred in the status report that these bail petitioners, including Rajiv, Kalveer Singh and Amit were heard saying that today they have been attacked with Sword and Drat, but in future they will kill the complainant and his friends. The status report further reveals that during the incident, two cell phones and one silver chain of the complainant were also lost.
4(i). Status report indicates that such an incident has never occurred in their village Bhattiyan in the past. Due to this incident, the villagers are stated to be living in constant fear with serious apprehension of similar offence being repeated, at the behest of the bail petitioners with others.
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS- 13 -
4(ii). The status report reveals that after the aforesaid incident, the complainant [Sandeep Kumar], was brought by the villagers to a Private Hospital, .
namely, Akash Hospital, Nalagarh [HP] on 21.01.2024 at 11:00 A.M., in a serious condition, who after being given the First Aid, was referred by Akash Hospital at Nalagarh to Government Hospital i.e. Community Health Centre, Nalagarh on 21.01.2024 at about 12:10 A.M. Even the Medical Officer in CHC, conducted the medical examination, including CT Scan and referred CT Scan for further advise to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital [IGMC], Shimla. On receipt of medical advice from IGMC, Shimla and in view of the clarificatory request dated 17.02.2024, made by the Investigating Officer/In-charge, Police Post, Dhabota to Medical Officer, CHC Nalagarh, it was opined that the injury is grievous in nature and is dangerous to life and therefore, in view of this medical opinion, Section 307 IPC, was added to the aforesaid FIR, on 22.01.2024.
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS- 14 -
4(iii). During investigation, the two vehicles i.e. Fortuner, bearing registration No HP-12G-3535 and Jonga, bearing registration No HP-12K-9792 were taken .
into possession by the police.
4(iv). The status report reveals that the police recorded the Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and his friend Kulbir on 22.01.2024 and the statement of another friend, Neema, was recorded on 29.01.2024.
4(v). The status report indicates that on the basis of the disclosure statements made by the bail petitioners, Rajiv and Jitender on 23.02.2024 and on 25.02.2024, the Talwar [Sword] used by Jitender was recovered whereas, the Drat allegedly used by another bail petitioner, Amit Kumar, has not been recovered by the police till day.
4(vi). Status report further narrates that all these bail petitioners have filed bail applications before the Learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024, without disclosing the material fact that ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 15 -
Section 307 IPC was inserted prior to it on 20.02.2024 and these bail applications were rejected by Learned Trial Court on 29.02.2024, on the ground, that the .
bail petitioners, have suppressed factum of insertion of Section 307 IPC in their bail applications ; coupled with the fact that the offence was grave/serious by deadly weapons and the fact that one of the weapon (Sword) has been recovered clearly points out, towards the intention of the bail petitioners to commit the offence and since the investigation was at nascent stage, therefore, grant of pre-arrest bail would have prejudiced the investigation, therefore, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the bail applications of the bail petitioners on 29.02.2024.
In this background, the State Authorities and Learned State Counsel have prayed for vacation of the interim orders passed in Cr.MP (M) No 356 of 2024, [In re: Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurdev Singh], Cr.MP (M) No 357 of 2024, Lakhwinder Singh @ Billa ; and Cr.MP (M) No 358 of 2024, Sanjeev Kumar ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 16 -
[son of Shri Gurnam Singh] and prayed for rejecting the bail applications, in re: Cr.MP(M) No. 359 of 2024, Amit Saini ; Cr.MP(M) No 360 of 2024, Hoshiar Singh;
.
and Cr.MP(M) No.467 of 2024, Satish Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh, as referred to above.
5. Heard Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Imran Khan, learned counsel, for the bail petitioners and Mr. Prashant Sen, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for Respondent
-State; and Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Learned counsel, for the complainant.
6. Before dealing with the bail applications, it is necessary to take note of the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 506 IPC, which read as under:-
"Section 147 Indian Penal Code:
Punishment for rioting.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 148 Indian Penal Code:
Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.--Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 17 -
used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
.
Section 149 Indian Penal Code:
Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.-- If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 307 Indian Penal Code:
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 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.
Section 323 Indian Penal Code:
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.::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 18 -
Section 506 Indian Penal Code:
Punishment for criminal intimidation.-- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term .
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 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 r a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
7. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for pre-arrest or post-arrest bail-regular bail is to be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the claim for 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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 19 -
Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ;
reiterated in 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 exist which lead to believe or point out towards the accusation and even these parameters for bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01.
7(i). While dealing with the case for grant of bail, three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has mandated in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para-25 that the "nature of crime" has a huge relevancy, while considering the claim for bail.
7(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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 20 -
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:
r (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/ 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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 21 -
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."
8. In normal parlance, the general principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.
However, this Court is conscious of the fact that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], a prima-facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards the accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or whether a person ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 22 -
has falsely roped in the crime needs to be tested in background of self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein .
above.
9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No.3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, though a Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large interests of the public/ state.
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS- 23 -
In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court, is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred .
to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution.
ANALYSIS OF ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 [Annexure P-2] PASSED BY LEARNED TRIAL COURT-REJECTING BAIL APPLICATIONS:
10. Though originally the FIR dated 20.1.2024 was registered under Sections 147, r No.14 of 2024 148, 149, 323 and 506 IPC, but keeping in view the medical opinion, gravity of offence, the nature of injuries which were grievous in nature and dangerous to life, Section 307 IPC was inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR on 20.02.2024, yet the bail petitioners filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024 without disclosing factum of Section 307 IPC having been inserted/added to the aforesaid FIR. All six bail application(s) were rejected by the Learned Trial Court ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 24 -
on 29.02.2024 [Annexure P-2], in terms of the operative part of the order as under:-
"10. There are serious allegations against the present bail applicant. It is emerging from .
the case file that bail applicants and others were armed with deadly weapons. The recovery of these weapons clearly points out towards the intention of assailants. The record also shows that complainant had sustained serious injuries. The investigation is at nascent stage. The allegation of assault is yet to be verified. The pre arrest bail in such circumstances can prejudice the fair completion of the investigation.
11. Needless to say that the commission of offence which is attributed to the bail r applicant is very serious offence and high punishment is provided for this offence. Having regard to the severity of punishment in the event of conviction, the possibility of accused person absconding or fleeing from clutches of law, if released on pre arrest bail cannot be ruled out.
12 The most disturbing feature in this bail application is that the bail applicant has misled this court while obtaining pre arrest. Police report suggests that Section 307 IPC had already been invoked against bail applicant and others on 20.02.2024 and this application was admittedly moved on 21.02.2024 and bail applicant did not mention this fact in this application. Thus, they are not entitled to relief from this court on this count as well.::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 25 -
13 Hence, the bail applicant, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances has not thus been able to make out a case for his release on pre arrest bail at this stage, therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected at this .
stage."
In above backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that Learned Trial Court had rightly rejected the bail applications of all bail petitioners, on the ground, that while filing the bail applications on 21.2.2024 they have suppressed material fact that Section 307 IPC stood inserted to the aforesaid FIR on 20.2.2024 and after taking into account the gravity of offence causing injury with deadly weapons, out of which one weapon was recovered coupled with the severity of punishment and possibility of threatening the witnesses-complainant and likelihood of the bail petitioners fleeing from investigation, therefore, the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Learned Trial Court in rejecting all the bail applications, by a well-
reasoned order, suffers from no infirmity and the same needs no interference by this Court in these ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 26 -
proceedings.
ANALYSIS OF CLAIM IN INSTANT CASE:
11. After taking into account the entirety of .
the facts and circumstances, the statutory provisions and after receipt of Status Report(s) from the State Authorities and other material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that all the bail petitioners are not entitled to further concession of bail or for enlargement on bail, at this stage, for the following reasons :
11(i). The material on record, points out towards the prima-facie accusation against the bail petitioners.
Moreover, the reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the bail petitioners is writ large in the instant cases, in view of the facts narrated here-in-below :-
PREPAREDNESS, INTENTION AND COMMISSION OF OFFENCE BY USING DEADLY WEAPONS:
11(ii). Perusal of Status Report indicates that five accused, Amit, Rajiv, Hoshiar Singh, Jitender @ Honey and Kalvinder [including the bail petitioners ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 27 -
4 & 5 herein] entered into the marriage party-reception of one Neeraj of village Bhattiyan, inside the tent in Jonga, bearing registration No HP-12K-9792, where .
the local villagers, relatives, ladies were enjoying the DJ and having food. On entering the tent, the accused started making obscene remarks and unwarranted acts by resorting to continuous dippering the head flasher lights of the Jonga, which was objected to by the complainant, along with his two friends but after persistent requests, the occupants of Jonga [driven by Jitender with Rajiv on the side seat along with others], left the scene of occurrence by threatening the complainant and his friends of dire consequences.
Thereafter the above named five persons along with others, namely, Satish Saini [Up Pradhan], Sanjeev @ Sanju, Lakhwinder @ Billa and Sanju assembled together about 50 meters away from the marriage spot, near the house of Rajiv, [one of bail petitioner] where a Fortuner vehicle, bearing registration No HP-
12G-3535, was parked on the road. After attending the ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 28 -
marriage party reception, as soon as the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] along with his two friends, namely, Neema and Kulbir were on way home, on 20.01.2024 .
at about 10.00 p.m. and were about to cross the road from the frontside of these vehicles, then, they were mercilessly attacked by a Sword and Drat by the accused, including the bail petitioners, namely, Satish Saini [Up Pradhan], Rajiv, Amit, Jitender @ Honey, Kalveer r Singh @ Kiru, Hoshiar Singh, R/o Village Bhattiyan along with other persons namely Sanju @ Sanjeev, Lakhwinder @ Billa and another Sanju, residents of Village Basot.
11(iii). Even the Statement of a local villager, namely Harbans, recorded under Section 161 Cr PC, indicates that bail petitioners entered the marriage spot in a Jonga on 20.01.2024 and had resorted to unwarranted acts, obscene remarks and resorting to dipper of flasher lights which was objected to by complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and his two friends Neema and Kulbir and thereafter the bail petitioners, ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 29 -
after giving threatening, with dire consequences, left the scene of occurrence and thereafter they had managed the entire show of attacking the complainant .
[Sandeep Kumar] and his two friends, Neema and Kulbir with deadly weapons.
PLANNED INTENSION OF COMMITTING OFFENCE AND MANNER IN WHICH GIVEN EFFECT TO:
11(iv). Even the statement of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
on 22.01.2024 and those of his two friends, Kulbir dated 22.01.2024 and Neema dated 29.01.2024, points towards the prima facie accusation against the bail petitioners, that all the nine accused, including six bail petitioners had unlawfully assembled inside the two vehicles i.e. Jonga and Fortuner about 50 meters away from the marriage spot-reception near the house of Rajiv; were having deadly weapons i.e. a Talwar and Drat ; waited for the complainant and his two friends to reach nearby them ; and as soon as the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and his two friends ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 30 -
Neema and Kulbir reached and were about to cross the road from the front side of these two parked vehicles; the accused, including the bail petitioners, .
gave effect to their intention to attack and cause hurt to the complainant and two friends by mercilessly attacking them with deadly weapons i.e. Sword and Darat due to which the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] sustained injuries resulting in profuse bleeding on his scalp, causing wound of 8 x 1.5 cm, whereafter, they fled away from the scene of occurrence, instead of taking the injured to the hospital, who were taken to nearby, Akaash Hospital, Nalagarh, where the complainant-Sandeep Kumar was given First Aid on 20.01.2024 at 11:00 p.m., before being referred to CHC Nalagarh, where he was further admitted on 22.01.2024 at 12:10 AM, for further treatment.
11(v). Even MLC dated 21.01.2024 issued by Akash Hospital, Nalagarh, reveals that complainant [Sandeep Kumar], was given the First Aid in view of the injury caused on parietal region, by using deadly ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 31 -
weapon.
GRAVITY OF OFFENCE 11(vi). Moreover, a perusal of the Medical Records .
of CHC Nalagarh i.e. [Government Hospital], indicates that the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] was admitted to this CHC on 21.01.2024 at 12:10 A.M., and due to merciless attack by the accused, including the bail petitioners, the complainant-Sandeep Kumar sustained fracture on the cerebral hemisphere on left parietal bone which was detected in CT scan. This CT scan report was sent to IGMC, Shimla, [a premier health institution of the State at Shimla] for medical opinion, who opined on 24.01.2024, that the injury is grievous in nature. However, on 17.02.2024, the Investigating Officer, Police Post, Dhabota, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, wrote a letter to Medical Officer, seeking opinion as to whether the injury sustained was dangerous to life or not ? After taking into account all the medical records including the opinion of IGMC Shimla, the Medical Officer, CHC Nalagarh finally opined that ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 32 -
the injuries sustained by the complainant [Sandeep Kumar], were dangerous to life and based on this opinion, Section 307 IPC was added to the FIR.
.
Not only the complainant-Sandeep Kumar but two of his friends namely, Neema and Kulbir, were medically examined, who also sustained simple injuries.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON YET TO BE MADE :
11(vii). Ther Status Report indicates that though the accused Sword and Drat were used for inflicting injuries on the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and his two friends, Neema and Kulbir, and the sword had been recovered at the instance of the accused persons, namely, Jitender and Kalveer Singh, who are in judicial custody, but the Darat, allegedly used by one of the bail petitioners, Amit Kumar, is yet to be recovered.
12. In the background of the facts borne out in Paras 11 (ii) to (vi) supra, which are summarized to the minimum from the voluminous and numerous ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 33 -
various status reports, affidavits and other material including the Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the MLCs, etc this Court is of the considered .
view that the prima-facie accusation is writ large against the bail petitioners, at this stage. The material on record indicates the mode and manner in which all the nine accused {including six bail petitioners} formed an unlawful assembly about 50 meters away from the marriage reception ; assembled on the main road in their two vehicles ; carried weapons with them i.e. Sword and Darat to be used by them ; and then gave effect to their well designed, coordinated intent by mercilessly attacking the complainant-Sandeep Kumar and his two friends on 20.01.2024 at about 10:00 P.M;
causing grievous hurt-fracture on cerebral hemisphere at left parietal region bone of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] which was dangerous to his life. The mode and manner in which the entire occurrence was given effect to by the accused, including the bail petitioner, points towards the prima facie accusation and also ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 34 -
the gravity and seriousness of offence committed by bail petitioners. Moreover, one of the bail petitioners, Satish Kumar, an Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, .
Bhattiyan, who is supposed to be the custodian of rule of law, in a Panchayat has become a perpetrator to the aforesaid offence along with other accused in a coordinate manner. Further, the weapon used i.e. Darat is yet to be recovered from Amit Kumar {bail petitioner} or at his instance from other accused/bail petitioner(s).
Even severity of the offence and the material on record dissuades this Court from extending/continuing and granting concession of bail, to the bail petitioners, in larger societal interests, at this stage.
13. Besides the above, once the bail petitioners, after forming an unlawful assembly, with intention to attack the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and his two friends, with deadly weapons, i.e. Sword [though recovered], and the Draat is yet to be recovered, be it from Amit Kumar {one of the bail petitioners} or other co-accused till day then, enlarging the petitioners, ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 35 -
will make recovery of the Draat highly improbable, so as to scuttle and defeat the Investigation and the proceedings-trial thereafter.
.
14. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.S. Chandel, contends that the injuries sustained by complainant-
Sandeep Kumar and his two friends were not fatal and therefore accusation under Section 307 is not made out and the bail petitioners may be enlarged on bail. r This contention of Learned Senior Counsel is without merit, for the reason, that firstly, the overt act/incident was done with the intention to cause hurt-injury by using deadly weapons ; and secondly, the medical reports suggest that the injuries inflicted are dangerous to life ; and thirdly, in order to invoke Section 307 IPC, the nature of injury being grievous or life threatening or fatal was not necessary and lastly, while adjudicating upon the ambit and scope of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court has mandated in State of Madhya ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 36 -
Pradesh versus Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, Jage Ram versus State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh versus Kanha, (2019) .
3 SCC 605, that if an act irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge or under circumstances mentioned in the Section then, the grievous or life threatening injury was not necessary to maintain-invoke accusation under Section 307 IPC and such an intention can be ascertained from the actual injury, surrounding circumstances and nature of weapon used and severity of blows inflicted by an accused.
On facts of this case, as borne out from the Status Report and the other material on record, the prima facie accusation is made out under Section 307 IPC, which is a serious offence dissuades this Court from extending/granting bail to the petitioners, at this stage.
NON PARTICIPATION IN INVESTIGATION:
15. Even non-participation of the bail petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 37 -
in the Investigation refrains this Court from enlarging the bail petitioner, for the reason, after rejection of their bail applications by Learned Trial Court, three .
bail petitioners, namely, Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurdev Singh], Lakhwinder Singh and Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurnam Singh] i.e. Cr.MP (M) Nos. 356, 357 and 358 of 2024, were granted interim bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.03.2024 with directions to join investigation but despite the directions, the bail petitioners have failed to join the investigation on 02.03.2024 and on 3.3.2024 [between 01:30 p.m. to 03:00 P.M.] despite the fact that the concerned Investigating Officer was available in the Police Station.
15(i). Though Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel, states that the three bail petitioners, who were granted interim bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.03.2024 have visited the Police Station on 3.03.2024 at 14:17:58, which is clear from the photographs annexed with the case ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 38 -
record stands falsified and is contrary to the material on record, whereby, the MHC of Police Post, Dhabota as well as concerned the Investigating Officer [Amar .
Singh Rana] have sworn their respective affidavits dated 16.03.2024 before this Court [in Cr.MP(M) No. 356 of 2024, titled as Sanjeev Kumar] that these three bail petitioners, who were granted interim bail, had never turned up for investigation on 02.03.2024 and 03.03.2024. The Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioners, have also not filed any counter to rebut the stand of the official respondents in the affidavits and in these circumstances, inabsence of any rebuttal, the contention of Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioners cannot be accepted.
The non-participation of these three bail petitioners in investigation before the State Authorities
-police on 02.03.2024 and 03.03.3024, despite directions passed by this Court on 1.3.2024 is sufficient to deny the concession of bail to the bail petitioners.
15(ii). So far as other three bail petitioners, who ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 39 -
were not granted interim bails, i.e. Cr.MP (M)No. 359 of 2024, Amit Saini ; Cr.MP(M) No. 360 of 2024, Hoshiar Singh ; and Cr.MP(M) No.467 of 2024, Satish .
Kumar, these three bail petitioners have also neither reported for investigation nor joined the investigation, till day.
In the above background, once even these bail petitioners have been evading investigation, then, this Court is of the considered view that they are not entitled for further concession of enlargement on bail, when the weapon i.e. Darat, used for inflicting injuries, is yet to be recovered.
SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS - EARLIER BAIL APPLICATIONS:
16. Notably, all the six bail petitioners, have earlier filed the bail applications before Learned Trial Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, on 21.02.2024, which were rejected on 29.02.2024 and thereafter they filed the Bail Petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C., before this Court on 1.3.2024, with the following averments in Para (vi) of all the bail petitions, ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 40 -
reads as under:-
"(vi) That no other or similar Bail Application has been made so far as the petitioner before Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh or any other court including .
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India except the one mentioned above."
A perusal of the above reveal that believing the above averments, this Court granted the interim bail on 1.3.2024, whereas, all six bail petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands and have r suppressed the material facts that their bail applications were rejected on 29.2.2024 by the Learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Nalagarh.
16(i). While deprecating the practice of filing bail applications by suppression of facts and distorted facts, just to get the interim orders, even in bail matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No 303 of 2024, Kusha Duruka versus The State of Odisha, decided on 19.01.2024, has held as under:-
"7. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is "satya" (truth) and the same has been ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 41 -
put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre- Independence era, however, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism .
has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. Its nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth ;
speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that 'Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.'"
On facts, once, three of the bail petitioners ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 42 -
have filed bail petitioners and have obtained interim bail by this Court on 1.3.2024, by suppressing material facts that their earlier bail applications were rejected .
on 29.2.2024 by Learned Trial Court then, subsequent filing of an application on 06.03.2024, on objection raised Counsel for Objector-complainant will not ratify suppression and in these circumstances, the conduct of three bail petitioners disentitles them for further continuance of discretionary relief-concession of bail, in view of the mandate of law in the case of Kusha Duruka (supra). Ordered accordingly.
16(ii). Besides the above, the entire case set up is that they are innocent and they have been falsely roped in and they have no connection with alleged offence.
On filing of status reports, these averments are found to be distorted and based on suppressing of the true facts just to seek interim bail.
17. POSSIBILITY OF THREATENINGS :
Further, the bail petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, for the reason ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 43 -
that the status report filed by the State Authorities spells out that due to present incident involving the residents of Village Bhattiyan, Tehsil Nalagarh, .
District Solan are living in an atmosphere of fear, who may even threaten or cause injury or threat to life to the complainant-Sandeep Kumar and his two friends ; and even the State Authorities, including the villagers have expressed apprehensions/possibility of the bail petitioners committing similar offence and therefore, in the larger societal interests, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the bail petitioner.
17(ii). In terms of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, any tendency to jettison the criminal justice system either by threatening the complainant or his two friends or the witnesses-villagers who have given statement(s) against them under section 161 Cr PC and/or any likelihood of causing any inducement or promise to testify as per their dictates or to help the accused witnesses is a relevant consideration for denying concession of bail to the bail petitioners ,in ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 44 -
terms of the judgment in Bhagwan Singh versus Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Deepak and Another, decided on 23.08.2023, 2023 SCC Online SC 1059, .
as under:-
"18. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be a onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of य नाय तु पू य ते रम ते त दे वताः (where women are respected Gods live there) would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by process of law or accused persons are allowed to move around freely in the society or in spite of there r being prima facie material being present they are allowed to move around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or inducing them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice system, then the superior court will have to necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to erroneous orders being passed by courts below.
19. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 has held as under:
"9. Undoubtedly, considerations applicable to the grant of bail and considerations for cancellation of such an order of bail are independent and do not overlap each other, but in the event of non- consideration of considerations relevant for the purpose of grant of bail and in the event an earlier order ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 45 -
of rejection available on the records, it is a duty incumbent on the High Court to explicitly state the reasons as to why the sudden departure in the order of grant as against the rejection just about a month ago.
.
The subsequent FIR is on record and incorporated therein are the charges under Sections 323 and 504 IPC in which the charge-sheet have already been issued the court ought to take note of the facts on record rather than ignoring them. In any event, the discretion to be used shall always have to be strictly in accordance with law and not dehors the same. The High Court thought it fit not to record any reason, far less any cogent reason, as to why there should be a departure when in fact such a petition was dismissed earlier not very long ago. The consideration of the period of one year spent in jail cannot in our view be a relevant consideration in the matter of grant of bail, more so by reason of the fact that the offence charged is that of murder under Section 302 IPC having the punishment of death or life imprisonment it is a heinous crime against the society and as such the court ought to be rather circumspect and cautious in its approach in a matter which stands out to be a social crime of a very serious nature."
22. In this background, the contention or plea of delay being fatal to the prosecution when examined, it would, prima facie, indicate that in the complaint/FIR which has been registered on 25.03.2022 relevant to the incident ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 46 -
dated 24.02.2021 the reason has been assigned namely constant threat posed by the accused persons as stated in the complaint itself. It is in this background it will have to be seen as to whether in the societal .
circumstances the minor girl was placed, her tender age, then prevailing circumstances and the purported video depicting her nudity and the constant threat being posed to victim of video of rape which had been recorded being made viral in the event of prosecutrix informing anyone of the incident are factors which cannot be brushed aside which resulted in delay in filing the complaint. In other words, delay by itself would not be fatal for all times to come and the criminality attached to the incident would not evaporate into thin air or get extinguished by virtue of such delay. It all depends upon facts that may unfold in given circumstances and same would vary from case to case.
On the other hand, if the prosecution attempts to improvise its case stage by stage and step by step during the interregnum period, in such circumstances accused would be justified in contending that delay was fatal to stave off the proceedings initiated against such accused.
Thus, it depends on facts that would unfold in a given case. In the aforesaid background the fact of delay in the instant case prima facie cannot be held against the prosecution or in other words on the ground of delay in lodging FIR the genuineness of the complaint cannot be viewed with coloured glasses nor it can be held that by itself would be sufficient ground to enlarge the accused on bail.
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS- 47 -
24. The fact that accused Deepak is the son of sitting MLA would disclose the domineering influence he would wield not only in delaying the proceedings but also in pressurizing the witnesses to either resile from their statement .
given during the course of investigation or pose threat to them from deposing against accused on their failure to act according to his dictates or induce them to testify as per his dictates or to help the defence of the accused.
26. The complainant's grievance, through-out has been that Deepak had been threatening the prosecutrix and other witnesses and that there is every possibility of threat to their life in the event they depose to the truth, and such apprehension is justifiable, especially because accused is in a domineering r position. The complainant underlines the influence and possibility of the clout being wielded on the witnesses which cannot be discounted. The fact that even after recording of the deposition of the prosecutrix other prosecution witnesses have not come forward to tender evidence though more than nine dates of hearing has passed, would lend credence to the apprehension of the complainant. The High Court seems to have erred in not considering these basic facts while considering the prayer for grant of bail by taking into consideration the well- established judicial pronouncements already noticed hereinabove. That the court framed charges, prima facie discloses the possibility and reasonable suspicion of the accused prima facie culpability."
17(iii). Notably, this Court is of conscious of the ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 48 -
fact that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the bail petitioners-suspect-
accused may carry weight, but, in view of the facts .
of the instant case, where the once the bail petitioner Satish Saini, being an Up-Pardhan of Gram Panchayat, Bhattiyan, who was supposed to be the custodian of Rule of Law in a panchayat had himself become a perpetrator along with other accused by indulging in grave and serious offence therefore, the individual rights of the bail petitioners shall have to succumb to larger societal interests, at this stage, in terms of the mandate of law, in Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another (2012) 9 SCC 446, as under:
"17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasize, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilized society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to Rule of Law an individual is expected ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 49 -
to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with .
dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialized. The life of an individual living in a society governed by Rule of Law has to be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, "it is regulated freedom".
18. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 50 -
and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to .
disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing J. Oerter stated: "Personal liberty is a right to act without interference within the limits of the law."
19. Thus analyzed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized, for the rational collective does not countenance r an anti-social or anti collective act.
30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 51 -
concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over .
lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused."
POSSIBILITY OF FLEEING AWAY:
18. Further, the bail petitioners are not entitled for enlargement on bail, as there is every possibility of the bail petitioners fleeing away, just to scuttle the investigation and the trial and in these circumstances, larger societal interests shall certainly have precedence over the rights of the bail petitioners.
19. Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel pays for concession of bail, by contending that contends one Shri Shamsher Singh, father of Rajiv, one of the bail petitioners had registered an FIR No.16 of 2024, dated 23.01.2024 [Annexure P-3], that his son Rajiv [one of the bail petitioners] had resorted to an altercation leading to registration of FIR for commission of offence under Sections 147, 149, 451, 504, 427 and 506 IPC, with one Narender Singh @ ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 52 -
Ladi, cannot be of an advantage, for seeking bail in this case, for the reason, that the alleged altercation of Rajiv [one of the bail petitioners] with Narender .
Singh @ Ladi-another accused, has no connection with the accusation-offence in instant FIR No 14 of 2024 dated 20.01.2024 ; and, therefore, the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel is without any basis, is misconceived and is accordingly, rejected.
19(ii). Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned Senior Counsel, contends that another FIR No. 161 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, was registered by one of the bail petitioners, namely, Satish Kumar, under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC, cannot be of any avail to the bail petitioners when, the aforesaid FIR, nowhere indicates that the alleged offences were against or in the context of the complainant [Sandeep Kumar] and two friends, Neema and Kulbir, as in the instant case.
In this background, the plea of the Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioners, in making an attempt to draw inference of previous enmity, is not ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 53 -
borne out on facts and such contention cannot be of any assistance/help in instant cases for the bail petitioners herein, when the prima-facie accusation .
and/or reasonable grounds exist, pointing out towards the accusation against the bail petitioners, at this stage, in view of the status report, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the MLCs, coupled with the preparedness, consensual formation of an unlawful assembly of all nine accused including six bail petitioners with intention to cause injury, by using deadly weapon(s) i.e. Sword and Drat and then in giving effect to their design/commission of this grave-serious offence against three persons i.e. the complainant [Sandeep Kumar], Neema and Kulbir as referred to hereinabove.
20. MERE COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION NOT A GROUND FOR BAIL:
Mr Nareshwar Singh Chandel, Learned senior counsel states that since the investigation is complete and no custodial interrogation is required by the State Authorities coupled with the fact that the bail petitioners ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 54 -
have given an undertaking for participating in the investigation and the consequential trial, therefore bail must be granted, is in considered view of this Court .
cannot be basis for enlarging the bail petitioner on bail in view of the gravity of the offence when there is material pointing towards the grave and severe prima facie accusation against the bail petitioner.
Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl) No. 10810 of 2023 titled as The State of Jharkhand versus Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta decided on 07.11.2023 has categorically held that merely because the investigation is complete or the undertaking to participate in the trial has been furnished cannot in itself be a ground for releasing the bail petitioner in case of offences of serious nature. The relevant para 4 whereof reads as under:
4. The reasons that persuaded the High Court for granting bail to the respondent have been stated in paragraph-4 of the impugned order reads, thus:-
"4. Innocence has been claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. Further, it has been submitted that no overt act ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 55 -
has been alleged against this applicant. Investigation is complete. On the above basis, prayer for bail has been made."
5. When the offences alleged, inter alia, includes one under Section 307, IPC and the accused concerned is so arraigned with .
the aid of Section 149, IPC, such submissions, reflected in paragraph or the mere factum of completion of investigation by itself, cannot be the reason(s) for grant of bail without due consideration of the relevant aspects. At any rate, mere claim of innocence or undertaking to participate in the trial or contention of absence of specific allegation of any overt act cannot, in such circumstances, be assigned as reasons for grant of bail in a case of serious nature. We are of the considered view that in such circumstances, impugned order deserves to be r set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the High Court in B.A. No.12508 of 2022 stands set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The application which culminated in the impugned order is restored into the file in its original number to facilitate such consideration. We make it clear that we have not made any observation touching the merits."
21. On perusal of the material on record, borne out from the Status Report(s), affidavits and the facts and circumstances and the discussion made, for reasons recorded here-in-above, this Court is not ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 56 -
inclined to further extend the Interim Bail in Cr.MP (M) No 356 of 2024, titled as Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurdev Singh] versus State of Himachal Pradesh;
.
Cr.MP(M) No.357 of 2024, titled as Lakhwinder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh; and Cr.MP (M) No 358 of 2024, titled as Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurnam Singh] and the prayer for enlargement on bail is declined in case of other bail petitioners i.e. in Cr.MP(M) No.359 of 2024, titled as Amit Saini Versus State of Himachal Pradesh; Cr.MP (M) No 360 of 2024, titled as Hoshiar Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh; and Cr.MP(M) No 467 of 2024, titled as Satish Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh.
Accordingly, all the bail petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.
22. Consequent upon dismissal of Cr.MP(M) No 356 of 2024, titled as Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurdev Singh] Versus State of Himachal Pradesh;
Cr.MP(M) No.357 of 2024, titled as Lakhwinder Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh; and Cr.MP (M) ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS
- 57 -
No 358 of 2024, titled as Sanjeev Kumar [son of Shri Gurnam Singh], the interim bail granted on 01.03.2024 shall stand vacated and their personal .
and surety bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith.
The bail petitioners shall surrender forthwith and may seek regular bail thereafter. The State authorities shall take the consequential action in the matter.
23. Any observations made herein-above, shall not be construed in any manner as an expression of opinion on the merits of cases and these observations are made only, for the disposal of the instant bail applications.
24. In the aforesaid terms, all bail applications as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 24, 2024 (Bhardwaj) ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2024 20:36:08 :::CIS