Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 2386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
P.S. RANA, J.
Aadesh Kumar S/o Sh. Rambir Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Non-petitioner
Cr.MP (M) No. 1401 of 2016
Decided On : 30-11-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan.
For the Non-petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Negi, Dy. A.G.
The grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Criminal Law - Section 439 Cr.PC - Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 read with section 34 IPC - [Section 439 Cr.PC, Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 IPC] - The court considered the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of evidence, reasonable possibility of the accused's presence in trial or investigation, reasonable apprehension of witness tampering, and the larger interest of the public or state. It cited legal precedents to establish that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering that the accused was not required for investigation, the recovery of the weapon by the investigating agency, and the fact that the trial would be concluded in due course of time.
Fact of the Case:
The bail application was filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of bail relating to FIR No.274 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 read with section 34 IPC in Police Station Hamirpur Distt. Hamirpur (H.P.). The petitioner, a student, was accused of being involved in an incident where the injured was attacked with a sharp-edged weapon and was in a dangerous condition.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering that the accused was not required for investigation, the recovery of the weapon by the investigating agency, and the fact that the trial would be concluded in due course of time.
Issues: 1. Whether bail application filed by co-accused Aadesh Kumar is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited legal precedents to establish that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It considered the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of evidence, reasonable possibility of the accused's presence in trial or investigation, reasonable apprehension of witness tampering, and the larger interest of the public or state.
Final Decision: The bail application filed by co-accused Aadesh Kumar under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was allowed on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rupees One lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court on specified terms and conditions.
ORDER :
P.S. Rana, J.
Present bail application is filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of bail relating to FIR No.274 of 2016 dated 20.10.2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 read with section 34 IPC in Police Station Hamirpur Distt. Hamirpur (H.P.).
Brief facts of case:
2. On dated 20.10.2016 injured Vishal reported to the investigating agency that on 20.10.2016 he visited Govt. Degree College Hamirpur to appear in a paper and after examination at about 4.15 P.M. he was returning home alongwith Neeraj Sharma on his motorcycle. It is alleged that when injured Vishal came out of the gate of the college then accused persons namely Santosh Kumar, Saurav and Aadesh were standing. It is alleged that accused persons asked the injured to alight from his motorcycle. It is further alleged that as soon as injured alighted from the motorcycle all the accused persons started beating injured with fist and leg blows. It is further alleged that co-accused caught hold the injured from his arms and legs and co-accused Santosh Kumar gave a blow of 'Khukhri’ (Sharp edged weapon) on the head of injured. It is further alleged that accused persons also proclaimed that they would kill injured namely Vishal. It is further alleged that after receiving blows of 'Khukhri’ (Sharp edged weapon) injured Vishal became unconscious and fell down. It is further alleged that injured was saved by Neeraj Sharma, Pankaj Kumar and Tain Singh who brought the injured to hospital for his medical treatment. It is further alleged that 'Khukhri’ (Sharp edged weapon) recovered. It is further alleged that Medical Officer has given opinion that injury upon the body of injured was dangerous to life.
3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and Court also perused the entire record carefully.
4. Following points arises for determination:
(1) Whether bail application filed by co-accused Aadesh Kumar is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application?
(2) Final Order.
Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons.
5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Aadesh Kumar that Aadesh Kumar did not commit any offence as alleged by the investigating agency cannot be decided at this stage of the case. Same fact will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case.
6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Aadesh Kumar that investigation is completed in the present case and petitioner is not required for investigation purpose and petitioner is a student of BSc-IIIrd year and he has to appear in coming examination and on this ground bail application be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered (1) Nature and seriousness of offence. (2) Character of evidence. (3) Reasonable possibility of the presence of accused in trial or investigation. (4) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with. (5) Larger interest of the public or State. See AIR 1978 Apex Court 179 Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 Apex Court 253 The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. It is well settled law that grant of bail is rule and committal to jail is an exception. It is also well settled law that refusal of bail is restriction on the personal liberty of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled law that it is not in the interest of justice that accused should be kept in jail for an indefinite period. See 2012 Criminal Law Journal 702 Apex Court Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI. In the present case accused is in judicial custody and accused is not required for investigation purpose. In the present case weapon is also recovered by the investigating agency. There is no report of investigating agency that injured namely
