Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Akhil Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 491of 2024
Decided on : 03-05-2024
Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC, Arms Act, SC&ST Act - 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. The key legal provisions discussed included the nature of injuries, presence of the accused at the crime scene, and the impact of the incident on society. These provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a brutal attack resulting in murder and serious injuries to the victims. The victims were traced, trapped, and beaten in a planned and organized manner. The court considered the nature of injuries, statements of the victims, and the conclusion of the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it was not a fit case for granting bail due to the nature, gravity, and manner of the offense, as well as the period of detention. The observations made in the petition were strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application.
Issues: The issues included the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime, the nature of injuries sustained by the victims, and the impact of the incident on society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the offense, the prima facie case against the petitioner, and the impact of the incident on society in deciding not to grant bail.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed.
Petitioner has approahed 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.
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 spot. Son of victim Yuma Devi 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 was crying due to pains. SI Kushal Kumar instead of waiting for Ambulance directed QRT Team and son of victim to shift injured to the Hospital in his Police vehicle. Thereafter 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 (5x3 cm) over left knee.
(12) Bruise (variable size).
(13) fracture hank both bone forearm & leg both side.”
6. During investigation statement of Yuma Devi was also recorded on 2.9.2021 in Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, wherein she had given detailed statement about dispute and incident with explanation that at the ti
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.
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 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.
Detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of Constitution.
Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time, and that veracity of allegations levelled against him can be tested during trial.
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
