Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arjun Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 September, 2020
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP (M) No.989 of 2020.
Reserved on :9.9.2020.
Decided on: 10th September, 2020.
.
_______________________________________________ Arjun Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. P.K. Bhatti, Addl.
r Advocates General.
(Through Video Conferencing).
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No.25 of 2019, dated 17.2.2019, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.
2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2020 20:19:16 :::HCHP 23. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 16.2.2019, police were informed from Dr. Y.S. Parmar Medical College, Nahan, that an accident case has come in .
the hospital. On the basis of such information, police visited emergency ward of the hospital and found injured Rajinder Singh alias Neetu, admitted in the hospital. On inquiry, it was unearthed that the injured had received injuries, owing to fall from retaining wall (danga) near hotel Nestling Meadows Chai Mehlog. After seeing the condition of injured, the concerned Medical Officer referred him to PGI, Chandigarh. However, on 17.2.2019, it was telephonically conveyed from PGI, Chandigarh, that the injured has succumbed to his injuries. Consequently, police procured postmortem report of the deceased and a police team visited the spot of incident. Police recorded the statement of the father of deceased, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. (complainant), wherein he stated that Hotel Nestling Meadows Chai Mehlog, is of Shri Manish Aggarwal and occasionally, he used to work there, as cook.
On 15.2.2019 also, he was in the hotel alongwith Ajay Rana, Rajinder (deceased) and Arjun (petitioner herein). Since on the said day, no room of the hotel was occupied, Arjun and the deceased brought two bottles of country made liquor and all of them consumed the same. While having the liquor, the deceased, Arjun and Ajay Rana, were also playing ludo game and in the meanwhile scuffle took place between the deceased and Arjun Kumar.
When the complainant intervened, Ajay Rana pushed him and the deceased from the retaining wall of the hotel, resultantly, the deceased sustained ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2020 20:19:16 :::HCHP 3 injuries. Thereafter, the complainant and Arjun took the deceased to the hospital and afterwards a case was registered, under the apt Section of IPC against the petitioner. The investigation ensued and all the codal formalities .
were completed by the police. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan before the learned Trial Court and now the case is fixed for consideration on charge. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence, and there is every possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. She has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police, investigation is complete and challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2020 20:19:16 :::HCHP 4 also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.
7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has .
argued that in the wake of the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the fact that he is local resident of the place, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and also considering the facts that investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and custody of the petitioner is not at all required, so the present bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
8. Heard. At this stage, considering the way and the manner in which the offence is purportedly committed by the petitioner, the facts that he is resident of the place, thus neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Moreover, the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one and half years and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and also considering the facts that the investigation is complete, even the challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court and also considering the overall facts, which emerge from the records, and without discussing the same elaborately at this stage, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in this case FIR No.25 of 2019, dated 17.2.2019, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2020 20:19:16 :::HCHP 5 registered in Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one .
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:
i. That the petitioner will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and will appear before the Court.
ii. That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
iii. That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.
9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
Copy dasti.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 10th September, 2020. Judge (CS/virender) ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2020 20:19:16 :::HCHP