The presumption of innocence, the importance of not curtailing an individual's freedom indefinitely without proof of guilt, and the discretion of the court in granting bail based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Bail petitioner namely Kartik, who is behind the bars since 5th October, 2018, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C., praying therein for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 67/18, dated 05.10.2018, under Sections 302, 341, 323, 506,34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(S) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Nerwa, District Shimla, Himchal Pradesh.

2. Sequel to order dated 11.12.2018, ASI Jawant Singh, I.O. 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. Perusal of record/status report reveals that on 5th October, 2018, complainant Baldev Raj, who happened to be father of deceased Rajat Kumar, lodged a complaint in the Police Station Nerwa, alleging therein that on 5th October, 2018, his son, namely, Rajat Kumar had gone to Bohrad from Nerwa to drop her mother in a car along with his friend namely, Aman Himta, son of Sh. Sant Ram Himta, resident of village Daur. At about 4.30 P.M., when Rajat Kumar reached near college at Nerwa, one Swift Car bearing No. T 2864, being driven by accused Ritesh Bhikta, son of Mohan Lal Bhikta, came from opposite side and a person namely Ritesh Bhikta allegedly started quarreling with deceased Rajat Kumar on the ground that he failed to give him pass. Allegedly, accused Ritesh gave beatings to deceased Rajat Kumar. Complainant alleged that aforesaid facts as stated by him in the complaint, came to his knowledge through Aman Himta. On the basis of aforesaid compliant lodged by complainant Baldev Raj, formal FIR as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner as well as co-accused, namely, Ritesh Bhikta, Satish Kumar and Nikhil Manta. Bail petitioner and Ritesh Bhikta are behind bars since lodging of FIR, whereas, other co-accused, namely, Nikhil Manta and Satish Kumar, have been enlarged on bail being juvenile. It may be noticed that the aforesaid complaint was lodged by complainant Baldev Raj when deceased Rajat Kumar was alive, rather initial statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C was recorded in the presence of deceased Rajat Kumar, who thereafter was taken to Civil Hospital, Nerwa for treatment, but unfortunately, he couldn’t be saved.

4. Police also got the statement of Aman Himta, who at the time of alleged incident was with deceased Rajat Kumar, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate. After the death of deceased Rajat Kumar, his body was sent for post mortem to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. The Medical Officer, vide report dated 11th October, 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. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the record/status report, strenuously argued that no case much less under Section 302 IPC, is made out against the bail petitioner. Mr. Pathak, while inviting attention to this Court to the statement of Aman Himta, recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, contended that alleged beatings, if any, were given by co-accused Ritesh and not by present bail petitioner. Mr. Pathak, contended that evidence collected on record by Investigating Agency though reveals that at the time of alleged incident, present bail petitioner was with main accused Ritesh Bhikta, but there is nothing on record to prove that beatings, if any, were also given by the present bail petitioner, which led to the death of deceased Rajat Kumar. Mr. Pathak, while referring to postmortem report, contended that though there is no positive evid