IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Mohammad Farhan s/o Mohammad Shahid Ansari and ors - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors - Respondent
CRMPM No.1453, 1454, 1455, 1512, 1712 and 1934 of 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 439, 154 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 147, 149, 307 – Order of Conviction – Bail Application – Petitioners, are in judicial lock-up in case FIR, under Sections 302, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station – They have approached this Court, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in the matter – Held, Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material on record to construe prima facie involvement of petitioners in commission of offence and it is not a case where ex-facie no case is made out for implicating the petitioners in commission of murder of deceased Madan Lal. – Though evidence is to be assessed and evaluated by the trial Court during trial, however, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and heinousness of crime and also manner in which offence has been alleged to have been committed, court find that at this stage petitioners, except petitioner Muzammil Hussain son of Akthar Hussain are not entitled for bail. – Petitions qua all the petitioners, except Muzammil Hussain son of Akthar Hussain are dismissed – So far as petitioner Muzammil Hussain son of Akthar Hussain is concerned, he is 19 years old and though has attained majority but is still in his teens and, thus, to avoid adverse impact on his mind and giving him a chance to introspect and reform, court is of the opinion that he may be enlarged on bail at this stage. – In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. – In such eventuality, prosecution may approach competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. – Petition Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. Petitioners, herein, are in judicial lock-up in case FIR No.7 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, under Sections 302, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), registered in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. They have approached this Court, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), seeking regular bail in the matter.
2. In status report, filed on behalf of respondent- State, statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh has been reiterated, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the petitioners.
3. According to status report, on 21.1.2020, an information was received from ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, in Police Station Parwanoo that a person injured in a quarrel has been brought to the hospital for treatment, whereupon HC Vinod Kumar alongwith others had rushed to the hospital, where statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he had stated that on that day, i.e. 20.12.2020, at about 11 p.m., when he was sitting in his vehicle at Sector-6 Parwanoo, near Negi Petrol Pump, he had received a call on his mobile phone from Raju, who was friend of crane owner Pushap Behl, requesting him to accompany Madan Lal in the crane, loaded with a vehicle, upto Delhi. Complainant had agreed for that and had come near the crane whereon vehicle of Delhi bearing registration No.DL-6CM-4200 was loaded an crane driver Madan Lal was standing near the crane and a white coloured taxi and 5-6 young men standing around the taxi, were also there and the taxi driver was demanding fare, which was paid by one of those young men. Thereafter, the taxi driver left the place. Immediately thereafter, the man, who had paid the fare to the taxi driver, had started asking Madan Lal to drop them at Delhi immediately at that time, whereupon complainant had enquired Madan Lal about the status of fuel in the crane and Madan Lal had replied that fuel tank was to be filled. Thereafter, complainant Madan Lal and a young man of Delhi vehicle boarded the crane and other persons sat in the vehicle loaded on the crane and crane was taken to Negi Petrol Pump and fuelled for Rs.2000/- paid by the occupants of Delhi vehicle and then they started towards TTR to proceed to Delhi, but suddenly it started raining heavily and upon this complainant Rajan Kumar Singh had parked the crane at a distance of 35-40 metres from the Petrol Pump on the right side of the road. On asking by young man, sitting in the crane, for reason to stop, Madan Lal had told that neither the wipers nor one of the head lights of the crane were working and there was some defect in the crane. It was further told by the deceased that he will take them to Delhi next morning but the young men did not accept that and had started scuffling and arguing with deceased Madan Lal in the crane itself, whereupon Madan Lal had telephonically informed owner of crane Pushap Behl that there was a defect in the crane and that the occupants of the car had been forcing him to move for Delhi and arguing and beating him, whereupon the crane owner had asked Madan Lal to lock the crane and to sleep in any other vehicle with further assurance that he had been coming on the spot, whereupon complainant Rajan Kumar Singh and Madan Lal got down from the crane and the persons from the Delhi Vehicle had also deboarded the crane and car and started beating Madan Lal by saying that in case he did not move for Delhi at once then they would throw him from the road in gorge, whereas Madan Lal had asked them to talk with owner of the crane who was coming there. Upon this, petitioners picked up Madan Lal and threw him in the gorge and had tried to overpower complainant also by saying that he was also to be thrown in the gorge, whereupon complainant ran towards the Petrol Pump and had narrated the incident to persons deputed there and simultaneously he had also informed crane owner Pushap Behl about the incident.
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another
State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra
P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation
State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav
Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another
Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another
Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P.
Rakesh Ranjan Yadav versus CBI
Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another
Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu versus State of Bihar and another
Puran versus Rambilas and another
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra
Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another
Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala versus State of Gujarat (2008) 3 SCC 775
Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh
Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001) 4 SCC 280
Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338
Chaman Lal versus State of U.P. and another
Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.