Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Mukesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. M.P. (M) No. 878 of 2023
Decided On : 17-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Divya Raj Singh.
For the Respondent: Ranjna Patial.

Point of Law: Right of personal liberty is also relevant to be considered coupled with his alleged role in commission of offence.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27 and 30 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154 - Grant of bail - Murder offence - Consider case of petitioner for granting bail by treating him differently than his father - His involvement and conspiracy on his part is to be established before trial.
Findings of the Court:
Petitioner is an accused in a murder case, however, his involvement and conspiracy on his part is to be established before trial Court on basis of evidence on record, but at same time his right of personal liberty is also relevant to be considered coupled with his alleged role in commission of offence - Court find that case of petitioner can be considered differently than main accused and his son and on giving thoughtful consideration to material placed before Court, in its entirety, Court is of opinion that petitioner is entitled for bail at this stage - Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.
Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Petitioner herein, is an accused in case FIR No. 215 of 2020 dated 06.09.2020, registered in Police Station Haroli, District Una H.P. under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ in short) and Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. As claimed he has been arrested on 09.09.2020 and after remaining in police custody he is now in judicial custody. Challan was presented in the Court on 07.11.2020, and trial is pending adjudication.

2. Status report stands filed, wherein statement of complainant Ashwani Kumar, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has been reproduced and according to the said statement, complainant-Ashwani Kumar is Panchayat Pradhan, who is having land dispute with Harjot Singh co-accused and his family, but correction of revenue record has not been effected yet and on the disputed land, IPH Department has been constructing irrigation water tank outlets through Contractor. On 06.09.2020, on a call of IPH Contractor, complainant had reached the spot at 9.15 a.m. where Naresh Kumar (co-accused) of IPH Department was also present alongwith Contractor, and Suresh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar (petitioner) sons of accused Harjot Singh alongwith their father were also present. Complainant had objected construction of cement tank for water outlet on the disputed land with a request to construct the same later on, but on this, Naresh Kumar/co-accused overpowered the complainant and Harjot Singh and his sons Suresh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar (petitioner) had started beating complainant with wooden sticks, kicks and fist blows and at that time, Ashwani Kumar (deceased) son of Desh Raj had tried to intervene to stop quarrel. Whereupon, Harjot Singh accused had asked his son Suresh Kumar to bring the gun to kill Ashwani Kumar son of Desh Raj by saying that the said Ashwani Kumar was root cause of the quarrel and thereupon, Suresh Kumar brought the gun and fired a gunshot on the chest of Ashwani Kumar son of Desh Raj and thereafter all accused except Suresh Kumar ran away from the spot. Injured Ashwani Kumar had asked complainant-Ashwani Kumar to run away from the spot as he had received bullet injury. At that time, Suresh Kumar remained on the spot for about 10-15 minutes and when villagers started gathering on the spot, Suresh Kumar also ran away from the spot. Injured Ashwani Kumar was shifted by complainant in his vehicle with the help of his sons Chetan, Rajender and Raj Kumar to the Government Hospital for treatment, but he had succumbed to injuries on way to the hospital.

Lastly, it is stated that this entire plan had already been conspired by all four accused.

3. As per status report, on the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was registered and investigation was carried on. Besides postmortem of deceased Ashwani Kumar, complainant-Pradhan Ashwani Kumar was also subjected to medical examination and as per final report, Medical Officer on his MLC has opined that injuries received by complainant-Pradhan Ashwani Kumar were simple and blunt.

4. Record, produced on 27.04.2023, was also perused and photocopies of the relevant record were retained.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case prosecution case is considered to be true as it is, then also it is evident on the face of statement of complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as other material on record that Mukesh Kumar (petitioner) was though alleged to have been involved in beating complainant Ashwani Kumar, but he has no role, rather no knowledge about commission of offence by his brother Suresh Kumar on direction of their father Harjot Singh because as per complainant Ashwani Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Harjot Singh, Suresh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar (petitioner) started beating complainant with sticks, kicks and fist blows and, at that time, deceased Ashwani Kumar tried to rescue complainant Ashwani Kumar, whereupon, Harjot Singh asked his son Suresh Ku

Click Here to Read the rest of this document