Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kailash – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MPM No. 3160 of 2023
Decided On : 11-01-2024
BAIL - Criminal Law - IPC 302, 307, 451, 323, 324, 34 - The court discussed the parameters for granting bail and the liability under Section 34 of IPC. The court found that the accused were armed with deadly weapons and acting in concert, making them liable under Section 34 of IPC. The court also highlighted the importance of prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge and the frivility of prosecution. The bail was denied based on the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail for offences under IPC Sections 302, 307, 451, 323, 324 read with Section 34, arising from a long-standing dispute. The petitioner's family members were arrested, and the petitioner's mother lodged a complaint against the informant and her family members. The trial was pending, and the petitioner had been in jail for over 1½ years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were armed with deadly weapons and acting in concert, making them liable under Section 34 of IPC. The court also highlighted the importance of prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge and the frivility of prosecution. The bail was denied based on the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the accused under Section 34 of IPC, the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, and the frivility of prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the liability under Section 34 of IPC, the importance of prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, and the consideration of the frivility of prosecution. The court also considered the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed, and the observations made in the judgment were stated to have no bearing on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the police for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 451, 323, and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC registered vide F.I.R. No. 51 of 2022, dated 04.06.2022 at Police Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P. The informant Giano Devi has a long-standing dispute with the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner and his family members were arrested by the police on 04.06.2022. The mother of the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. No. 50 of 2022 against Smt. Giano Devi, Satish Kumar and Deshraj stating therein that Giano Devi started uprooting the wooden pillars on 04.06.2022 at 7:30 p.m. When the petitioner’s mother asked her not to do so; she and her family members attacked her with hockey sticks, axes and sticks. The police filed a cancellation report without conducting a proper investigation. The statements of spot witnesses Mintu and Kamla were not recorded. As per the cancellation report, Kunti Devi and the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. However, no explanation for the same was provided in the F.I.R. The objections to the final report have been filed, which are pending adjudication before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. The Statement of Gurmail Singh is contradictory to the statement of Giano Devi. As per the complaint, the accused gave an Axe blow to Satish and not to Deshraj. Six witnesses out of 26 have been examined and the conclusion of the trial will take considerable time. The objections to the cancellation report are also to be decided and in case the objections are accepted, the trial in both cases will be conducted together as they had arisen out of one incident. The question as to who was the aggressor is yet to be decided. The petitioner has been inside the jail for more than 1½ years and he is entitled to bail as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan in SLP (Crl.) No. 11714 of 2022, decided on 15.02.2023. The petitioner had filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was dismissed. The petitioner will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court while releasing him on bail. There is no chance of absconding the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
2. The petition was opposed by filing a status report, asserting that informant Giano Devi made a report to the police that she had a dispute over the land with Kunti Devi. Many quarrels have taken place between them. Kunti Devi came to the informant’s land on 04.06.2022 and threatened to kill her. Puneet also came to the spot and hit the head of her husband Deshraj with an Axe. The petitioner inflicted a blow on the informant’s head and also inflicted a blow with Axe on the head of Satish. The informant and her family members sustained injuries. Gurmail and Amar Nath came to the spot and rescued the informant. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. As per Medico Legal Certificate, Giano Devi and Satish Kumar had sustained injuries with a sharp-edged weapon. Deshraj was taken to PGI, Chandigarh for his treatment. He succumbed to his injuries. Challan was prepared and presented before the competent Court. As per the post-mortem report, the death was caused due to craniocerebral damage and laceration of the right lung consequent upon blunt impact over the head and chest, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Six witnesses have been examined and other witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner can intimidate or influence the witnesses in case he is released on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
3. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, fo
The liability under Section 34 of IPC, prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, and the frivility of prosecution are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.
The Court upheld convictions under IPC sections for attempted murder and assault, emphasizing the weight of eyewitness and medical testimony, and affirming the principle of common intention among mul....
(1) Common intention – An act would mean and include other acts along with it – Section 34 IPC creates a deeming fiction by infusing and importing a criminal act constituting an offence committed by ....
Common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a pre-arranged plan; mere individual actions by co-accused do not suffice for joint liability in attempted murder.
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 can arise spontaneously during the commission of an act, and upheld the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on th....
In custodial death cases, all involved in the torture share liability under Section 34 IPC regardless of direct participation, as joint culpability is established by shared common intention.
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
