Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Sansar Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No. 1267 of 2023
Decided on : 14-07-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rahul Thakur and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General. ASI Pyare Lal, Police Station Hatli, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

Point of Law: Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 341, 323,504, 506, 34 - Grant of regular bail – Murder offence - Bail petitioner approached court by way of instant petition for grant of regular bail - Petitioner is accused of having indulged in heinous crime having adverse impact upon society but mere gravity of offence cannot be sole criteria to reject bail rather certain other factors are also required to be taken into consideration. (Para 19)
Finding of the Court :
Bail petitioner is behind bars for one year and ten months and till date trial has not been completed and there are very bleak chances of conclusion of same in near future, as such, there appears to be no justification to keep bail petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, during trial, keeping in view fact that bail petitioner is a first offender and there is no other case registered against him, apart from present one - Petitioner is accused of having indulged in heinous crime having adverse impact upon society but mere gravity of offence cannot be sole criteria to reject bail rather certain other factors are also required to be taken into consideration - Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.
Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner, Sansar Chand, who is behind the bars for the last one year and ten months, has approached this court by way of instant petition filed under S.439 CrPC for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 97, dated 18.9.2021, registered at Police Station Hatli, Tehsil Baldwara, district Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 302, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with S.34 IPC.

2. Respondent State has filed status report and Investigating Officer has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Story of the prosecution as emerges from the record/status report is that on 18.9.2021, deceased Ravi Kumar alias Panku got his statement recorded at Police Station Baldwara, District Mandi, alleging that on 17.9.2021 at 9.00 pm, a person namely Nitu (bail petitioner) alongwith another person gave beatings to him at Bhambla bazaar with iron rod, on account of which he suffered injury in left eye and other parts of body. Complainant also alleged that Nitu alongwith his friend obstructed his path and gave beating to him with fists and iron rod but he was able to escape with great difficulty from clutches of both the persons, however, while leaving the spot, the accused named in the FIR extended threats to the complainant. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above came to be lodged against accused named in the FIR. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner coupled with the fact that co-accused Sanjeev Kumar alias Sanju and Prithi Chand, already stand enlarged on bail, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this court peruse the record/status report, vehemently argued that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He states that as per own statement of complainant, NItu is resident of Village Sulpur but the bail petitioner, who has been named in the FIR is resident of village Behi. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that material prosecution witnesses examined till date have not supported prosecution case, rather, PW-4 Krishan Chand, star witness of the prosecution, has resiled from his statement given to police, wherein he had allegedly stated that complainant/deceased was given beatings by Sansar Chand alias Nitu (present bail petitioner) alongwith other persons Sanjeev Kumar and Prithi Chand in his Dhaba. Mr. Sharma, while making this court peruse the statements of prosecution witnesses examined till date, tried to persuade this court to agree with him that no case, much less a case under S.302 IPC, is made out against the bail petitioner as such, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. Lastly, Mr. Sharma submits that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than one year and ten months but till date prosecution has been able to examine only fifteen witnesses out of thirty eight witnesses. He states that since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him and statements of material prosecution witnesses already stand recorded.

6. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Kahol states that there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner gave merciless beatings to the deceased complainant, as a result of which he died as such, it cannot be said that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Mr. Kahol states that as per evidence led on record,