Point of Law : Grant of bail is rule and refusal is exception.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

These two petitions have been heard together and are being decided by a common order as common questions of facts are involved. Both bail petitions have arisen out of the same FIR.

2. Petitioners have prayed for grant of bail in case FIR No.255 of 2022, dated 20.7.2022, under Sections 302, 147 and 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petitions are that on 19.7.2022 police recorded the statement of one Pratik Kundu under Section 154 Cr.P.C. regarding the incident in question. It was reported that on 14.7.2022, the complainant alongwith his four other friends namely Tushar, Sudhir, Nitin and Rohit reached Manikaran in District Kullu in their personal vehicle. They stayed at Manikaran on 15.7.2022. On 16.7.2022, all of them visited Barshaini in the vehicle and thereafter started tracking towards Khir Ganga. They reached Ice-Point at about 5.45 p.m. It was drizzling. They sat on the chairs in a café. While they were gossiping amongst themselves, some persons were having liquor in the adjoining shed. Two persons came to them and asked as to what were they talking about. They got enraged and started altercation with the complainant and his friends. They got scared and ran towards Khir Ganga. Some more persons joined together and chased the complainant and his friends and pelted stones on them. After running for about 1- 1½ kilometers, all five persons from complainant party ran downwards on a slope. Four of them took shelter under a stone, but Rohit did not reach there. After some time four of them called Rohit, but Rohit did not respond. It had become dark by then. They came up, but did not find Rohit. Thereafter four of them started towards Khir Ganga, there also they came to know that local persons were searching for them. On 18.7.2022, they reached Barshaini via Bhun-Bhuni with the help of some persons. They could not contact anyone as there was no mobile signal on the hills. They informed their family members once they reached Barshaini.

Thereafter, on 19.7.2022, the matter was reported to the police.

4. The case was registered. On completion of investigation, police has presented the challan in the Court on the hypothesis that Rohit had rolled down the hill after being hit by a stone and had drowned in the river. Six persons including the petitioners have been implicated as accused. It is alleged against them that on 16.7.2022 all the accused persons had chased the complainant party and had pelted stones on them. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded supplementary statements of the complainant and his friends, in which they disclosed that Rohit had rolled down the hill after being hit by a stone pelted by the accused persons. All the four friends had followed Rohit on the slope to save him, but he could not be saved and they all had seen him rolling towards the river.

5. Petitioners have prayed for grant of bail on the grounds that the complainant party has concocted a false story. The petitioners have not been involved in any offence. It is also submitted that there is no legal evidence to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. The petitioners are stated to be permanent residents of Village Nakthan, Post Office Barsaini, Tehsil Bhunter, District Kullu, H.P. and they undertake to remain available for the purpose of trial.

6. On the other hand, the bail petitions have been opposed on behalf of the respondent/State. It has been submitted that the petitioners are accused of serious offence. The accusations against them are of serious nature. In case of their release on bail, petitioners may abscond or flee from the course of justice and they may also try to influence the prosecution evidence.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

8. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. As