Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Ritesh Bhikta – Appellant
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1586 of 2018
Decided On : 06-02-2019
Ajay Kochhar, Adv., Varun Chauhan, Adv., Dinesh Thakur, Adv., Sunny Dhatwalia, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the general rule, and the court must balance the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty with the need for evidence to prove guilt.
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) Act]
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, 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. The deceased Rajat Kumar was allegedly beaten by the bail petitioner and co-accused, leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient evidence to infer that the deceased died due to beatings allegedly given to him by the bail petitioner and co-accused. The post-mortem report did not reveal evidence of death due to injuries inflicted in the scuffle. The court also considered the opinion of the Forensic Expert, which indicated no external/internal injury sufficient to cause death.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cause of the deceased's death, the sufficiency of evidence against the bail petitioner, and the gravity of the alleged offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and the need for evidence to prove guilt. It emphasized that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail and considered factors such as the nature of accusations, nature of evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and likelihood of the offence being repeated.
Final Decision: The bail petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail with specific conditions. The court clarified that any observations made were confined to the disposal of the petition and not a reflection on the merits of the case.
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-a-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 f
