Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
Yaseen Mohd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 1409 of 2020
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 439, 154 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201, 120, 279, 304 – Bail Application – Present bail application has been maintained by petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station – Held, Principle of parity has exceptions and these exceptions are far and wide. – Available record reveals that in the instant case the petitioner is the main accused and he played a key role in planning the murder of the deceased and ultimately killing him. – A perusal of the records also shows that there is more than sufficient material against the petitioner. – It has come on record that it was the petitioner, who compelled co-accused to call the deceased to their residence and with prior concert with the co-accused, petitioner killed the deceased and after putting his corpse inside the vehicle pushed the same down the hill to give it a colour of an accident. – Considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the plea of parity cannot be accepted, as roles of co-accused and that of petitioner in alleged offence are not akin and cannot be balanced. – As per the records, on one hand it was petitioner who planned murder of deceased and virtually he successfully committed same and role of the co-accused, as emerge, is that she called the deceased to her residence by making telephone calls to him, so the roles played by both of them are clearly distinguishable and cannot be kept in a same box. – Petitioner cannot treated with yardstick of principle of parity and benefit of principle of parity cannot be extended to him. – Court finds that in case, at this stage, if petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may also tamper with prosecution evidence and after considering all facets of case, which emerge on record, and without discussing same ornately at this stage, and in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that present is not a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. – Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.
1. The matter is taken up through video conference.
2. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 108 of 2018, dated 27.10.2018, under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC, registered in Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P.
3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.
4. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emanates from the records, is that on 27.10.2018 Incharge, Police Post Nakrodh, sent a rukka to Police Station, Tissa. Complainant, Shri Kayum Mohammad made a statement to the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per the complainant, on 25.10.2018, his brother, Lateef (son of complainant’s uncle) took his vehicle, having registration No. HP01C-1147 (Taxi), for visiting the house of his relatives and in the evening Lateef (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) came upto Tikri bridge to drop his family. Thereafter, when he talked with the deceased on telephone, he informed that he alongwith the vehicle is at Dehrog and going for some work. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith others went towards that side and found that the vehicle had rolled down the hill for about 500 meters and the deceased was lying there. As per the complainant, the deceased, who was driving the said vehicle, died in the accident. On the basis of the complainant, police visited the spot and prepared the spot map. Statement of the complainant was recorded by the police. Police registered a case under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Documents of the accidental vehicle were taken into possession. It has come in the investigation that the spot, from where the vehicle rolled down, there was blood stained soil and blood was also found on the road, so the police lifted the blood stained soil. Corpse was sent for postmortem and as per the medical opinion, all injuries were found to be ante-mortem in nature. Scientific samples were sent for forensic analysis. On 01.12.2018, during search operation of the surrounding area of the place of occurrence, police found an iron angle and a plastic pipe under the rocks. The iron angle and plastic pipe were taken into possession and sent for forensic analysis. It has also come in the police investigation that the blood found on the road and the blood of the deceased were same and completely matched. Thereafter, the police obtained the call records of the deceased and it was found that the deceased used to talk with one Ramjani (co-accused). The deceased had illicit relation with co-accused Ramjani and Yaseen (petitioner herein), husband of co-accused Ramjani, knew this fact. The FIR, which was registered earlier, was converted into Section 302 IPC and the petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2019. During the course of police interrogation, the petitioner divulged that on 25.10.2018 he murdered the deceased with stone and stick, but he could not get recovered the stick, which was thrown by him. The petitioner also identified the spot of occurrence, so the police prepared the spot map. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and it was unearthed, during the course of investigation, that the petitioner saw co-accused Ramjani and the deceased in an objectionable condition. Co-accused Ramjani, during the course of interrogation, disclosed that she had illicit relations with the deceased and when her husband (petitioner herein) came to know about it, he compelled her to call the deceased to their home. On 25.10.2018 coaccused Ramjani made 28 calls to the deceased and while he was en route the petitioner murdered the deceased and tried to
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
