Point of Law: Pre-trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Both these petitions were heard and are being decided together as these arise out of the same “FIR” and involve common questions of facts and law.

2. A case under Sections 302, 341, 323, 147, 149, 504, 506 and 201 of the IPC has been registered at Police Station Kot-Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P vide FIR No. 105 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022. The foundation for registration of above FIR was a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., of one Shri Daya Ram (now deceased). It was alleged that on 21.11.2022 at about 9.30 P.M. complainant was present in his house and had received a phone call from Subhash Chand informing that Keshav Dutt (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) 831 of 2023) and Ram Kumar alias Manu were inflicting blows upon Naresh Kumar (son of complainant) with sticks. The complainant with his other son Dinesh Kumar proceeded towards the house of Subhash Chand and when they reached near cow shed of Joginder Pal, they were waylaid by Joginder Pal and his two sons Shashi Pal, Keshav Dutt (petitioners), nephew Ram Kumar alias Manu, wife Ramana Devi and his daughter-in-law. He further complained that Joginder Pal and his nephew Ram Kumar alias Manu inflicted blows on left leg of complainant with sticks. Petitioners, wife and daughter-in-law of Joginder Pal gave beatings to Dinesh Kumar. They were saved by intervention of Subhash Chand and his son Monu. In the result, complainant had received injuries on his left leg and his son Dinesh Kumar had received injuries on head. Both of them went to Civil Hospital Ghawandal for treatment and found Naresh Kumar, the other son of complainant already under treatment there. Statement of Daya Ram was recorded on 22nd November, 2022.

3. In the evening on 22.11.2022, the police received the information that Daya Ram had died at Regional Hospital Una. His postmortem was conducted. The investigation is stated to be almost complete. The opinion regarding the cause of death of Daya Ram has been kept pending till receipt of report from “RFSL” and Histopathology laboratory.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence with the police to suggest that Daya Ram had died on account of injuries allegedly inflicted upon him. He further contended that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioners. Even as per the statement of Daya Ram recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., he had not named the petitioners to be the persons having inflicted any injury on him. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated with a purpose to settle the scores as the complainant side was having inimical relations towards them. As per petitioners, they have no criminal antecedents. They are permanent residents of Village and Post Office Saloa, Police Station Kot-Kehloor, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. and petitioners have undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against them.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer on the ground that both the petitioners are involved in a serious and heinous crime. The investigation is still going on and in case of release of petitioners on bail, there is every likelihood that they may tamper with the prosecution evidence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

7. The gravity and seriousness of accusations, undoubtedly, are relevant factors for consideration while deciding the petition for bail. However, only allegations of commission of heinous crime are not sufficient to deny the bail. The court has also to assess the nature of evidence and other material collected by the investigating agency in support of such accusations.

8. I have gone through the status report filed on behalf of the respondent and have also gone through the record of investigation. Late Shri Daya Ram had given his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to the police on 22.11.2022, whereas the