IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of considering the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, and the nature of supporting evidence in determining the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Pardhan-Gram Panchayat, Berry informed the police on 12.06.2023 at 7:40 am that a deadbody was found in the Beas River beneath Sandha Patan Bridge. The police went to the spot and recovered the deadbody. Injuries were found on the forehead and the nose of the deadbody. Enquiries were made in the vicinity but no person could identify the deadbody. Subsequently, Vinod Kumar and Virender Kumar went to the police post Sandhol. Vinod Kumar said that deceased Rinku Kumar had accompanied him to Seoh in his truck. Informant Vinod Kumar took the dinner on 11.06.2023. Rinku went to the truck for sleeping and Vinod Kumar went to the room of Contractor Virender Kumar. Vinod Kumar looked for Rinku on 12.06.2023 in the morning but he was missing. Vinod Kumar searched for him. When he made enquiries in Seoh Bazar from a local person, he was informed that the deadbody of one person was found in the Beas River. The post-mortem examination of the deadbody was conducted. The Medical Officer issued a report that the deceased had died due to the ante mortem drowning leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. The wife of the deceased filed an application stating that Rinku and Vinod had gone in a truck towards Seoh, Sandhol on 09.06.2023. Rinku was in touch with his wife and his children till 11.06.2023. The wife of the deceased called him at 3:00 PM on 11.06.2023; however, the mobile phone was found not reachable. Subsequently, she was informed that Rinku had jumped into the Khad. The police registered the FIR based on the complaint. The police visited the spot with the RFSL team on 20.06.2023 and found the blood-stained soil beneath a tree having a beehive on it. The samples were lifted from the spot. The police interrogated Vinod Kumar and Virender Kumar. The police obtained the call detail record of Vinod, Virender and found that Virender had made many calls to Raj Kumar alias Raju during the night. Virender Kumar disclosed the involvement of Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar in the incident. Virender Kumar and Vinod Kumar disclosed that Rinku attempted to take the honey out of the beehive and fell in the process. They believed that he was dead and threw him into the Beas River. Virender Kumar produced his vehicle, which was seized by the police. Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar were also arrested, who also confirmed the version of Virender Kumar. It was found after the investigation that Vinod Kumar, Virender Kumar, Raj Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Rinku Kumar had gone to extract honey. Rinku climbed the tree and fell. Virender informed Prakash Chand about the incident, who advised him to take Rinku to the hospital; however, the accused instead of taking Rinku to the hospital threw him into the Beas River. The police presented the challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC.

2. Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar filed regular bail petitions seeking their bail. It was asserted that the petitioners are innocent and they are involved in a false case at the instance of some interested person. They have not committed any offence. Nothing incriminating was found in their possession. There is no chance of their absconding. The petitioners would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. The petitioners do not have any criminal record; hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

3. The status report was filed by the police reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that in case of release on bail, the petitioners can abscond and commit a serious offence. They can intimidate the witnesses and they would not appear in the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitio