Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
Nikhil Malik — Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh — Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1363, 1364 of 2019
Decided on : 19-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
N.S. Chandel, Adv., Vinod Gupta, Adv., Shiv Pal Manhans, Adv., P.K. Bhatti, Adv., Raju Ram Rahi, Adv., Anand Shamra, Adv., Karan Sharma, Adv.
The court's discretion to grant bail must be exercised judicially, considering the gravity of the offence, the stage of the trial, and the potential for tampering with prosecution evidence.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act - [Section 300 IPC, Kalyanchandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranajan @ Pappu, Anil Kumar Tulsiyani vs. State of U.P. and Another, Chandrakesjwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, Iqbal and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh] - The court discussed the bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking release in a case involving serious offences including murder, attempted murder, and arms act violations. The court analyzed the arguments of the petitioners and the prosecution, considered the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and examined the principles for grant of bail. The court ultimately found that the gravity and seriousness of the crime, the stage of the trial, and the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence weighed against granting bail to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute at a restaurant leading to a shooting incident resulting in the death of the complainant's husband and injury to another person. The petitioners sought bail, claiming innocence and arguing that the prosecution's case lacked evidence connecting them to the alleged offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gravity and seriousness of the crime, the stage of the trial, and the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence weighed against granting bail to the petitioners. The court dismissed the bail applications, stating that the petitions lacked merits.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the grant of bail to the petitioners accused of serious offences, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and the potential for tampering with prosecution evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the gravity and seriousness of the crime, the stage of the trial, and the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence, as well as the lack of change in circumstances warranting bail.
Final Decision: The bail applications of the petitioners were dismissed, and the petitions were found to lack merits.
JUDGMENT :
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 68 of 2016, dated 27.06.2016, under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.
2. The facts giving rise for registration of the above case against the petitioners, amongst others, can tersely be encapsulated as under:
On 26.06.2016 Smt. Taran Jeet Kaur (complainant) got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant stated that she alongwith her husband, Shri Param Jeet Singh (deceased) used to run a restaurant (dhaba) at Sanawara and the said dhaba was being looked after by her, her husband and nephew Hansdeep (injured). On 26.06.2016, when she was washing clothes, around 05:00 p.m., 10/15 persons of a tourist group were in the dhaba and they were being attended by Naresh Kumar (attendant). There arose a dispute qua the freshness of the meals and scuffle ensued. One of the persons from the tourist group went to the vehicle, brought a pistol and fired on her husband (Shri Param Jeet Singh). Shri Hansdeep was also hit with gun shot on his chest. Thereafter, all the persons fled away from the spot in their vehicle, having registration number of Uttar Pradesh. The husband of the petitioner and Shri Hansdeep were rushed to the CHC, Dharampur. The husband of the petitioner was declared dead and Shri Hansdeep was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Postmortem examination on the corpse of the deceased was conducted. Police prepared the spot map and clicked photographs of the spot. CCTV footage was obtained and police recovered empty cartridges, sword like weapon, having blood, pieces of carton etc. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioners alongwith other accused persons fled away from the spot in vehicle, having registration No. UP14FT-3871. The petitioners was arrested on 27.06.2016 and they were medically examined. Police collected the scientific evidence for analysis. Other accused persons were also arrested. Scientific samples collected from the spot were chemically examined in Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. CCTV footage was also examined, which shows the presence of the petitioners and other accused persons on the spot. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioners alongwith other accused persons were on tour to Dharamshala and Shimla and while returning they stopped in the dhaba of the deceased. The petitioners and other accused persons were not satisfied with the food quality, so a quarrel started and petitioner Rahul Malik fired on the deceased. As per the prosecution, challan stands presented in the Court and now the prosecution witnesses are being examined. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were involved in a serious offence and in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The prosecution objected the petition on the ground that there exists prima facie case against the petitioners and other accused persons and there is reasonable ground that the petitioners, alongwith other accused persons, committed the murder of the deceased, the offence of which the petitioners are accused of is grave and there is possibility that the petitioners, in case enlarged on bail, may abscond. Simultaneously, the prosecution is objecting the bail applications on the premises that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may try to influence the witnesses and there is possible danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail to the petitioners.
3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Advocate General for the S
