IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Joginder Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. M.P.(M) No 643, 644, 747 & 748 of 2023
Decided on : 05-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201 and 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154, 173 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Murder offence – Grant of bail - Part of dismembered body was lying in a grass land in village - Dismembered part of body was identified to be that of his son – Merely because, accusations are of serious nature and offence, if proved, will attract severe punishment, cannot be only ground to deny bail. [Para 12]
Finding of the Court: Forensic Science Laboratory Report also prima-facie does not opine connection between blood stains found on sickle, chopper and knives allegedly recovered from house of co-accused with deceased - Evidence collected by investigating agency to prove above noted circumstances, cannot be said to suggest a strong inference against petitioner - Analyzing facts of case at touchstone of legal parameters, as enunciated from time to time and noticed above, this Court is of view that petitioner is entitled to bail.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Petitioner is accused in case FIR No. 49 of 2022, dated 21.7.2022, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that a boy named Ankit Kumar alias Anku aged about 19 years, resident of Village Samoh, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. was student of Polytechnic Institute at Village Kalol, District Bilaspur. On 13.7.2022 Ankit Kumar alias Anku left his native village to join his College by personal vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69A-1984 (Alto K-10). The vehicle belonged to his maternal grandmother. In the evening of 14.7.2022, Ankit Kumar alias Anku left for his native village from village Kalol. At about 8.30 p.m., he telephonically informed his mother that he had reached village Baroha and would reach home within 10-15 minutes. Ankit Kumar alias Anku, however, did not reach home that night. Next morning at about 8.30 a.m. father of Ankit Kumar alias Anku noticed the vehicle No. HP-69A-1984 parked behind the house of Jodh Singh. Thereafter, search was launched for Ankit Kumar alias Anku, but he could not be found anywhere. On 19.7.2022, father of Ankit Kumar alias Anku lodged missing report at Police Station, Jhandutta.
3. On 21.7.2022, Vice President, Gram Panchayat, Samoh telephonically informed the police that a part of dismembered body was lying in a grass land in village Samoh. Police reached the spot. Sh. Ramesh Kumar, father of Ankit Kumar alias Anku got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The dismembered part of the body was identified by Sh. Ramesh Kumar to be that of his son. Accordingly, the above noted case was registered.
4. During investigation, on 22.7.2022, the other parts of the body were recovered and identified by Sh. Ramesh Kumar. Postmortem was got conducted. It was opined that the body had been severed with cutter/sharp edged weapon. The complainant Sh. Ramesh Kumar and his brother Sh. Ravi Kant raised suspicion of commission of offence against the petitioner and other co-accused namely Devi Dass S/o Jhamdiya Ram, Chaman Lal S/o Sh. Devi Dass, Hem Raj alias Kaku S/o Devi Dass, Kiran W/o Hem Raj and Lal Dhar S/o Agnu Prasad.
5. The police after completion of investigation, has presented the challan against petitioner and other abovenamed co-accused. As per the final report submitted by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., sufficient evidence is stated to have been found against petitioner and other co-accused. It is alleged that accused Devi Dass and his family had enmity with the family of deceased. They criminally conspired with petitioner and Lal Dhar and murdered Ankit Kumar alias Anku during intervening night of 14/15.7.2022 and in order to destroy the evidence had severed the body in parts and such parts were separately disposed of by packing those in gunny bags.
6. Petitioner was arrested on 23.7.2022. He remained in police custody till 02.08.2022 and thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. Petitioner is still in judicial custody.
7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his prolonged custody is unwarranted. He was simply working as a labourer in the house of Devi Dass and the investigating agency has not been able to find any incriminating evidence against petitioner. He has been implicated merely on the asking of the complainant. It is further contended that petitioner has committed no offence. The challan stands filed. Most of the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased and they have joined hands with the sense of sheer vengeance. Petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of Village Pipla Shivnagar, Post Office, Tehsil and Police Station Milakh, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. He has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. It is submitted that the crime has been committed in mo
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 3 SCC 22
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2017) 5 SCC 218
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and another (2021) 6 SCC 230
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40
Detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of Constitution.
Pre-trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule.
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
Under Section 439 CrPC, prolonged pre-trial custody, lack of direct evidence, and the presumption of innocence support the grant of bail, especially when co-accused have been released.
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
The court ruled that the seriousness of the charge under Section 302, supported by incriminating evidence, justifies denial of bail, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring justice and community safety....
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of evidence tampering, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty with justice.
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.