Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Inder Dev - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. M.P. (M) No. 2747 of 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2023
Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC, Arms Act, SC&ST Act - Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109, 34, 25, 3(1)(r), (s), (w), 3(2)(va) - The court discussed and referenced various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and SC&ST Act in the context of the bail application. The key legal provisions discussed included the evidence from CCTV footage, witness statements, and forensic reports to establish the petitioner's alleged involvement in the offense. The court considered the seriousness of the charges and the nature of the offense in reaching its decision to dismiss the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a matter related to a serious incident of assault and murder. The prosecution's case revolved around a dispute between the complainant party and the assailants, leading to a violent attack resulting in severe injuries to the victims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including CCTV footage, witness statements, and forensic reports, indicated the petitioner's alleged involvement in the pre-planned murder and brutal attack. The court also noted the seriousness of the charges and the nature of the offense in denying the bail application.
Issues: The key issues included the petitioner's alleged involvement in the offense, the admissibility of evidence from CCTV footage and forensic reports, and the impact of the seriousness of the charges on the bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of the evidence, including CCTV footage, witness statements, and forensic reports, to establish the petitioner's alleged involvement in the pre-planned murder and brutal attack. The court also considered the seriousness of the charges and the nature of the offense in denying the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed by the court, citing the evidence and the seriousness of the charges as reasons for denying bail to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) seeking bail in case FIR No. 239 of 2021, dated 26.8.2021, registered in Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w) & 3 (2)(va) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as SC&ST Act).
2. Status Report stands filed. Record was also made available along with CCTV Footage of Café Waters Edge, being relied upon by the prosecution for identification of accused and other persons. Petitioner has also placed on record Pen Drive with claim that it contained CCTV Footage relied upon by the State with further submission that said CCTV Footage shall demonstrate that petitioner was not involved in commission of offence and thus entitled for bail.
3. Prosecution case is that on 25.8.2021 at about 7:30 P.M. an information was received in Police Station, Kullu that at near Saeubag at Chhururu, some mishap had occurred. This information was transmitted by Police Station staff to QRT team and to SI Kushal Kumar, the then SHO, who was on patrolling. SI Kushal Kumar, out of his Patrolling Party, deputed ASI Vij Ram and Constable Om Parkash to reach Regional Hospital, Kullu to handle the situation on arrival of injured, and alongwith remaining team of Patrolling Party he rushed to spot. On reaching near Café Water Edge (hereinafter referred as Café) at Chhururu, he met Constables of QRT Team of Kullu Police who were controlling the traffic on the spot, managing preservation of the spot and were waiting for Ambulance to shift injured persons from the spot. Son of victim Yuma Devi and Paras Ram, and other onlookers were also present on the spot. Paras Ram was lying in katcha portion of road on side of road. He was bleeding badly and at some distance from him, in the middle of the road, his broken vehicle was there. On left front seat thereof injured Yuma Devi wife of Paras Ram was crying due to pains. SI Kushal Kumar instead of waiting for Ambulance directed QRT Team and son of victims to shift injured to the Hospital in his Police vehicle. On reaching the Hospital, treatment of injured was started in emergency. During treatment, statement of Yuma Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by ASI Vij Ram, on the basis of which FIR was registered under Sections 307, 320, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 3 of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. Keeping in view serious condition of victims during night, they were referred to Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, Mandi. As provisions of SC&ST Act were attracted, therefore, in compliance of communication dated 26.8.2021 issued by Superintendent of Police, Kullu, investigation was transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu.
5. As per medical record, following major injuries were found on the person of victim Yuma Devi and Paras Ram.
“1. Open wound left leg-blunt injury.
2. Lacerated wound left leg-blunt injury.
3. Swelling both arms-blunt injury.
4. Swelling distal phalange both arms-blunt injury.
5. Open wound left thumb blunt injury.
6. Fracture both bone forearm-grievous nature.
7. Fracture left leg-grievous nature.”
(b) Paras Ram:
“(1) Lacerated Wound (3x2 CM) over frontal region.
(2) Bruise (variable size) over right and left shoulder 10x3, 2x1 cm, 5x3 cm.
(3) Bruise (10x3 cm) over left shoulder.
(4) Open wound over right forearm (3x1 cm, 3x1 cm, 4x2 cm).
(5) Open wound over left forearm.
(6) Bruise (6x4 cm) over left thigh 9 cm from ASIS.
(7) Bruise (5x3 cm over Right thigh 10 cm from ASIS.
(8) Open wound (3x1, 4x2, 3x1.5 cm, 4x1) over left leg.
(9) Open wound (4x1) cm over right leg.
(10) Lacerated wound (6x3 cm) over left arm.
(11) Bruise (
Bail denied in serious assault/murder case as CCTV footage, eye-witness identification of presence and participation with co-accused establish prima facie involvement, despite statement contradiction....
The court ruled that strong evidence existed against the accused for serious crimes, and health concerns and trial delays did not justify bail.
The court ruled that the presence of the petitioner in CCTV footage and witness statements constituted a prima facie case, justifying the denial of bail.
The nature, gravity, and manner of the offense, as well as the impact of the incident on society, were central to the court's decision not to grant bail.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trials violates the accused's right to liberty and mandates release on bail to avoid indefinite incarceration.
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 judgment establishes that a person may act in self-defense when faced with an imminent threat, and the absence of mens rea is crucial in determining the appropriate charges under IPC.
The presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the need for a complete chain of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence are crucial legal principles established in the judgm....
Violation of the fundamental rights of the accused-applicant guaranteed under Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
