Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Happy Kant - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.MPM No. 3187 of 2023
Decided On : 12-01-2024
BAIL - Offences under IPC - Sections 302, 341, and 323 read with Section 34 - [302, 341, 323, 34] - The court discussed the right of private defence, the nature and gravity of the offences, and relevant legal principles in determining the entitlement for bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail for offences under Sections 302, 341, and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner claimed innocence and self-defence, while the police asserted the petitioner's involvement in a heinous offence resulting in the death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the right of private defence, and the circumstances leading to the injuries sustained by the deceased. It concluded that the petitioner's plea of self-defence was not acceptable at this stage, and the gravity of the offence was a relevant consideration in denying bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of innocence and self-defence, the nature and gravity of the offences, and the relevance of the right of private defence in the given circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the right of private defence is not available for punishing a wrongdoer and that the nature and gravity of the offences are relevant considerations in determining bail entitlement. It also highlighted the 'but for' test to establish causation in the injuries sustained by the deceased.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's bail petition, considering the gravity of the offences and the prima facie satisfaction of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) registered at Police Station Rampur, District Shimla vide FIR no.45 of 2023 dated 01.04.2023.The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There was an altercation between the petitioner, the deceased and his allies, which can be affirmed by the statement of Sang Dass, who was present on the spot. Sang Dass stated that he was sitting with one Daulat Ram. The petitioner came to him and he requested help from Sang Dass. The petitioner stated that two or three boys had looted him and given him beatings, which fact is apparent by the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The deceased was in a drunken state and he fell on the road. The deceased had sustained traumatic brain injuries secondary to blunt injuries which led to the trauma. There was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner acted in self-defence. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Kullu and there is no chance of his absconding. He will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
2. The police filed a status report asserting that the informant-Dev Raj made a statement that he was posted as Home and was on night duty Guard on 31.03.2023. He was on duty from 10:00 pm till 2:00 am. He heard the noise of two or three persons shouting. He and Maan Dass went to the place from where the noise was coming. They saw that four or five people were quarrelling with each other. The informant and Man Dass tried to separate the quarrelling people and two persons ran away. One person was lying in injured condition, who revealed his name as Prakash on inquiry. He said that Vicky, Thapa and Rahul were with him and ran away from the spot. The petitioner was with them who had given beatings to Prakash Chand. Prakash Chand fell while running away and sustained injuries. The petitioner said that these three persons had snatched his money and key, which led to a dispute between the parties. The Police registered the FIR. Prakash was sent for medical examination and he was referred to IGMC, Shimla. He succumbed to his injuries. The Police arrested the petitioner, who revealed on enquiry that he had gone to a new bus stand in his vehicle on the intervening night of 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2023. Three people met him and snatched his money. He sought help from Pawan Kumar and Balbir Negi. Balbir and Pawan searched for those persons on his motorcycle. When the petitioner went ahead of the HRTC workshop, he saw one person, who was hiding behind the bushes. The petitioner and other persons gave him beatings. Prakash sustained injuries in the incident. Pawan and Balbir were also brought to the Police Station and they were interrogated to confirm the story of the petitioner. The police also arrested them. The challan has been prepared and presented before the Court. As per the report of the post-mortem, the deceased had died due to traumatic brain injury, secondary to blunt trauma sustained to the head region. No poison/ethyl alcohol was detected in the report of Chemical examination. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses and can abscond, in case he is released on bail. The petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Mr. Ravi Tegta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
4. Mr. Ravi Tegta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police story also corroborates the version of the petitioner that his money was s
The nature and gravity of the offences are relevant considerations in determining bail entitlement, and the right of private defence is not available for punishing a wrongdoer.
Pushing a person causing fall and death from head injury does not prima facie constitute offence under Section 103(1) without attributable knowledge of likely death; bail granted as added sections ba....
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
Bail denied in murder case due to prima facie aggressor role evidenced by eyewitness, CCTV, blood-stained exhibits; criminal antecedents; witness tampering risk from prior enmity; trial delay not out....
Bail denied in murder case as driving co-accused to scene and fleeing infers common intention under Section 34 IPC despite no overt act, given offence gravity and punishment severity.
Bail denied in attempt to murder via hammer blow to head causing fracture; gravity of offence, severe punishment (life imprisonment), and witness tampering risk paramount despite no blood on weapon.
To establish a case under Section 34 of I.P.C. prosecution has to prove prior meeting of minds which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action a....
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
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
