IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Lakhwinder Singh alias Abhi - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No.409 of 2024
Decided On : 26-03-2024
Bail Petition - Criminal Conspiracy - Cr.P.C. 439, IPC 307, 323, 384, 120-B, 212, Arms Act 25, 54, 59 - The court discussed the provisions of Cr.P.C. 439 and IPC 307, 323, 384, 120-B, 212, and Arms Act 25, 54, 59. The court emphasized the gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the accused's criminal history in denying bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The bail petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for a case originating from FIR No 277/2023 dated 01.11.2023, involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated and sought bail due to unblemished conduct and a bright future as a wrestler.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was actively involved in a criminal conspiracy to extort money and commit murder, as evidenced by the sequence of events detailed in the status report. The court also noted the severity of the accusation and the petitioner's past criminal record, leading to the denial of bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy, the severity of the accusation, and the impact of the petitioner's past criminal history on the bail decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the petitioner's past criminal conduct, as well as the parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for regulating grant of bail.
Final Decision: The court denied the bail petition, citing the prima facie accusation, the severity of the offence, the petitioner's criminal history, and the potential threat to public safety and the investigation if the petitioner were to be released on bail.
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
The bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] has come up before this Court, seeking a regular bail, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure [herein referred to as Cr.P.C.], originating from FIR No 277/2023 dated 01.11.2023, registered under Sections 307, 323, 384, 120-B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 24, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una [H.P.].
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The case set up by Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, learned counsel for the petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi], is that the bail petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Lower Badhere, Tehsil Haroli, District Una. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid matter. It is further averred that no evidence exists which connects the present bail petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. It is further averred that investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose will be served in case the bail petitioner is enlarged on bail, as the bail petitioner is behind the bars since 07.11.2023 at District Jail Bangar, District Una [H.P.].
2(i). It is further averred that no past criminal history exists and the conduct of the bail petitioner is unblemished. It is further averred that the bail petitioner is a wrestler and he has bright future and the detention will ruin his career. It is averred that the petitioner has been roped in, on the basis of mere hearsay evidence. The bail petitioner has given undertaking that in case of enlargement on bail, the bail petitioner shall attend the trial and shall execute the personal/surety bonds and shall not cause any threat or inducement to the witnesses in any manner. The instant bail petition, has been filed on behalf of the bail petitioner [Lakhwinder Singh @ Abhi] through his father as he is already in custody, as referred to above.
2(ii). The petitioner had filed a bail application No.497/2023 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-ll Una, on 07.12.2023, which was dismissed on 31.01.2024 [Annexure A-1]. The operative part of the order passed by the Learned Trial Court reads as under:-
12. The applicant is though permanent resident of this area, but he has hatched criminal conspiracy with his co-accused persons, who except accused Bansh Raizada hail from the State of Punjab and the manner in which the criminal conspiracy was hatched to extort money from the complainant and attempt to kill him was made call for rejection of the bail application as it would not be safe for the complainant and his associates if the applicant is enlarged on bail as it would put them under constant pressure or terror of being killed by the applicant and his co-accused persons, who in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched to extort money from the complainant are alleged to have made attempt to kill him by opening fires on the vehicle of the complainant occupied by him and his associates and one of his associates (Mani) was injured in that pistol fired incident.
13. The applicant had acquired 10 live cartridges from accused Bansh Raizada, who had the same from accused Tashu Sidhu at Hoshiarpur near Bulabari chowk after he was deputed to there by co-accused Sumit Jaswal alias Kaku and had conversation with principal accused Arun Kumar alias Mani Rana suffering detention in District Jail Ludhiana and thereafter the applicant and the accused Sumit Jaswal alias Kaku met the shooters accused (Lavdeesh San
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab
Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee
P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement
Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Haryana versus Dharamraj
Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No 3840 of 2023
Sunil Kumar versus State of Bihar and Another
Bharwad Santosh bhai Sondabhai versus State of Gujarat and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and the power under Section 438 of CrPC is to be exercised sparingly. The court emphasized the import....
The main legal point established is that bail should be granted when no prima facie or reasonable grounds exist, and the nature of the crime is a crucial factor in considering bail applications.
The court ruled that bail should be denied due to the petitioner's extensive criminal antecedents and involvement in the crime, emphasizing the need for public safety.
Bail can be granted even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act when prolonged incarceration occurs without trial, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty and speedy trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail depends on various factors, including the nature of the offence, the presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane att....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.