SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(HP) 825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
MOHINI PATRWAL, D/O SH. RAJINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION(MAIN) No. 1618 of 2021 a/w CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION(MAIN) No. 1619 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SH. ARUSH MATLOTIA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SH.SUDHIR BHATNAGAR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. NARENDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439, 154 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 302, 307, 452, 325, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149 and 201 – Offence of Murder - Punishment for Criminal intimidation – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Grant of regular bail - Whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial – Held, object of bail is to secure attendance of accused in trial and proper test to be applied in the solution of question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that party will appear to take his trial - Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail - Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment, which conviction will entail, character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to accused involved in that crime - Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment, which conviction will entail, character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to accused involved in that crime - bail petitioners have carved out a case for themselves and as such, present petitions are allowed and bail petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety in like amount each, to satisfaction of Court with following conditions - It is clarified that if petitioners misuse liberty or violates any of conditions imposed upon them, investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of bail - Petitions stand disposed of.

ORDER :

Bail petitioners, namely Mohini Patrwal and Rubel Patrwal, who are behind the bars since 18.6.2021, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.81 of 2021, dated 18.06.2021, registered at police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 302, 307, 452, 325, 504, 506, 147, 148, 149 and 201 of IPC.

2. In terms of order dated 23.8.2021, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Ashwani Kumar has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned.

3. Perusal of status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 18.6.2021, complainant namely, Pritam Chand got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C alleging therein that on 18.6.2021, at about 8.00 AM while he was going towards house of Rakesh Kumar, he saw persons namely, Kartar Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar, Robin, Mohini, Rubel, Asha, Nisha and Shankuntla going towards the house of Rakesh Kumar. Complainant alleged that all the above named persons were carrying Darat (sickle) and dandas (sticks) and they after having opened the Iron Gate, entered the veranda and started giving beatings to Uma Shankar and Rakesh Kumar. After having heard cries of aforesaid persons, persons namely, Satpal, Dharam Pal, Sheela Devi and Subhash Chand, also reached the spot and tried to rescue persons namely, Uma Shankar and Rakeh Kumar. Complainant alleged that all the persons namely, Kartar Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Rajinder Kumar, Robin, Mohini, Rubel, Asha, Nisha and Shankuntla started giving beatings to Subhash Chand with Sickle and sticks and Rajinder Kumar gave blow of sickle on the head of Subhash Chand, as a consequence of which, he fell on the ground. Complainant also alleged that Kartar Chand, Ravinder Kumar, Rubel, Robin and Mohini were carrying sticks in their hands and person namely Ravinder Kumar gave blow of stick on the head of Rakesh Kumar, as result of which, he fell on the ground. He alleged that all the persons, named hereinabove, kept on hitting Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar with sticks and they left the places extending threats and hurling abuses. Complainant alleged that Ms. Sonali daughter of Subhash Chand picked Subhash Chand from the ground and he was bleeding. In the aforesaid background, a case under Sections 307, 452, 147, 148,149, 504 and 506 of IPC, came to be registered against the persons named hereinabove. On account of injuries suffered by Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar they were initially taken to Dr. Rajinder Prashad Medical College, Tanda, but from there they both were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Since both the above named persons subsequently succumbed to their injuries, a case under Section 302 of IPC apart from the sections as detailed hereinabove came to be registered against the persons named in the FIR including the present bail petitioners. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. Learned counsel representing the bail petitioners submits that bail petitioners, who apart from being women are college going girls have been falsely implicated in the case. While referring to the status report, he submits that as per own case of the investigating agency persons namely, Subhash Chand and Rakesh Kumar died on account of the injuries inflicted on their heads by persons namely Rajinder Kumar and Ravinder Kumar. Lastly, learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that since considerable time would be consumed in the conclusion of the trial and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars, who are otherwise college going girls.

5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly acknowledging the

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top