Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Ritesh Bhikta – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1586 of 2018
Decided On : 06-02-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Kochhar and Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocate General. ASI Jaswant Singh, I/O, Police Station, Nerwa, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the need to balance competing factors while exercising discretion in granting bail, and the emphasis on the evidence, including the post-mortem report and expert opinion, in determining the grant of bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Regular Bail - S.439 CPC - Ss. 302, 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [302, 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC, 3(1) SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 (1 of 2016)] - The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to infer that the deceased died due to beatings allegedly given by the bail petitioner and co-accused. The court referred to the post-mortem report and expert opinion, highlighting that no external/internal injury was found sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. The court also emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need to balance the competing factors while exercising discretion in granting bail. The bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail with specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The bail petitioner filed a bail petition under S.439 CPC for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 67 of 2018 dated 5.10.2018, under Ss. 302, 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complaint alleged that the bail petitioner and co-accused gave beatings to the deceased, resulting in his death. The court analyzed the evidence and found no sufficient evidence to infer that the deceased died due to the alleged beatings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient evidence to infer that the deceased died due to beatings allegedly given by the bail petitioner and co-accused. The court referred to the post-mortem report and expert opinion, highlighting that no external/internal injury was found sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need to balance the competing factors while exercising discretion in granting bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bail petitioner should be granted regular bail in connection with the alleged offences under Ss. 302, 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the evidence, including the post-mortem report and expert opinion, which indicated no sufficient evidence to infer that the deceased died due to the alleged beatings. The court also emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the need to balance the competing factors while exercising discretion in granting bail.
Final Decision: The bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to specific conditions, including furnishing bail bonds, making himself available for interrogation, not tampering with the prosecution evidence, not leaving the territory of India without prior permission, and surrendering passport if held. It was clarified that the investigating agency could move the court for cancellation of the bail if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed.
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Present bail petition under S.439 CPC, has been filed by the bail petitioner namely Ritesh Bhikta, who is behind the bars since 5.10.2018, for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 67 of 2018 dated 5.10.2018, under Ss. 302, 341, 323, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station, Nerwa, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Sequel to order dated 11.1.2019, ASI Jawant Singh, I/O, Police Station, Nerwa, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has come present with record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report suggests that on 5.10.2018, complainant namely Baldev Raj, father of the deceased Rajat Kumar, lodged a complaint with the police at Nerwa, alleging therein that on 5.10.2018, his son namely Rajat Kumar, who had gone to Bohrad to drop his mother in a car alongwith one Aman Himta, was given merciless beatings by the present bail petitioner as well as other co-accused namely NIkhil, Satish and Kartik. Complainant further alleged that at about 4.30 pm, car being driven by his son-Rajat Kumar, was stopped near College at Nerwa by the present bail petitioner, who at the relevant time was driving Swift Car bearing registration No. T-2864I. Allegedly, Ritesh Bhikta (bail petitioner), started quarelling with the deceased Rajat Kumar, on the pretext that he (Rajat Kumar) failed to give pass to his car and bail petitioner gave beatings to the deceased Rajat Kumar, as a consequence of which, he (Rajat Kumar), suffered injuries. Complainant specifically stated in the complaint that factum with regard to scuffle between bail petitioner and deceased came to his notice through the person namely Aman Himta, who at the relevant time was with the deceased, Rajat Kumar. On the basis of aforesaid complaint lodged by the complainant, Baldev Raj, a formal FIR, as mentioned herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner as well as co-accused namely Nikhil, Kartik and Satish. Present bail petitioner is behind the bars since the date of lodging of FIR i.e. 5.10.2018, whereas, other co-accused namely Nikhil and Satish Kumar have been enlarged on bail, being juveniles. Similarly, another accused-Kartik has been also ordered to be enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 8.1.2019, passed in CrMP(M) No. 1623 of 2018.
4. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it may be noticed that the complaint, as has been taken note herein above, was lodged by the complainant, when deceased Rajat Kumar was alive, rather, record reveals that initial statement under S.154 CrPC was recorded in the presence of Rajat Kumar, who was taken to Civil Hospital, Nerwa thereafter, for treatment, but, unfortunately, he succumbed to the injuries alleged to have been suffered by him in the scuffle. After recording the statement of Aman Himta, under S.164 CrPC, before the Magistrate, Police sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. Medical officer, vide report dated 11.10.2018 opined that, “deceased died as a result of acute coronary insufficiency leading to cardiogenic shock and death. However, chemical examiner’s report is awaited.”
5. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while making this court to travel through the status report vis-à-vis record made available to this court, vehemently argued that no case, much less, case under S.302 IPC is made out against the bail petitioner. He further contended that a bare perusal of the statement given by Aman Himta under S.164 CrPC, clearly suggests that the deceased Rajat had fled away
