IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Shankar Lal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) Nos. 217, 468, 469, 470, 471 of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201, 202, 120B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342, 506 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Petitioners sought regular bail, asserting false implication in a heinous crime involving murder and destruction of evidence - Co-accused granted bail, petitioners claimed parity - Court found insufficient specific evidence against petitioners Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram, and Shankar Lal, allowing bail with conditions. (Paras 1, 14, 18, 20)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The court must consider the nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, role attributed to the accused, and likelihood of tampering with witnesses - Mere apprehension of witness intimidation can be mitigated with conditions. (Paras 7, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were implicated in a murder case involving the death of Tikam Chand, allegedly due to mob violence after he was accused of theft. The petitioners claimed innocence and sought bail, citing the absence of criminal antecedents and roots in society.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed bail for four petitioners due to lack of specific evidence against them, while denying bail to one petitioner due to the gravity of the charges.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the accusations against the petitioners and the principle of parity in bail decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of specific roles attributed to the petitioners in the statements of witnesses warranted their release on bail, while the serious nature of the charges against one petitioner justified the denial of bail.
Result: Petitions allowed for Hemant, Ashish, Geeta Ram, and Shankar Lal; petition dismissed for Rajeev Sharma.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner(s) have filed the present petition(s) for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in FIR No. 56/2024 dated 01.04.2024 registered at Police Station West District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘SC/ST Act’). The petitioners are innocent and they have nothing to do with the commission of crime. They were falsely implicated by the mother of Tikam Chand. The charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Co-accused had got pre-arrest bail from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one co-accused Vinay Sharma got bail from this Court. The petitioners belong to a respectable family. They have roots in the society. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. They would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. They do not have any criminal antecedents. The trial has not commenced and there is a violation of the right of speedy trial of the petitioners, hence the petitions.
2. The petitions are opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police on 1.4.2024 stating that her son Tikkam Chand alias Nittu (since deceased) was working as a labourer in the house of Sewa Nand in Village Khalyar. Prabha Devi, wife of Sewa Nand, called the informant on 22.3.2024 and told her that Tikkam Chand had fallen. Sewa Nand also called her and told her that Tikkam Chand had died due to a fall. The informant was coming to her home on a bus. She told Sewa Nand that she would call him after getting off the bus. However, she could not call him back as she was unable to locate the mobile number of Sewa Nand. She told her other son Med Ram about the call. The police also called her and inquired whether she had authorized any person to burn the dead body to which she replied in negative. Med Ram went to the village and found that the dead body of Tikam Chand was burnt by the villagers. His ash was handed over to him (Med Ram) with Rs.5,000/-. The informant subsequently discovered that Tikkam Chand had committed a theft in a temple and the villagers had beaten him to death. The police registered the FIR. It was found that a call was received in Police Post Jutogh on 21.3.2024 that police should contact Rajiv Sharma. The police called Rajiv Sharma who said that one person had lit a fire near the temple. He was a thief and heavily intoxicated. He was being taken to the police post. The police waited for the person but nobody came to the police post. The police again contacted Rajiv Sharma in the morning and he said that the person was sent to his home. Tikkam Chand was found dead at a distance of 60-70 mtrs. from the temple. His dead body was seen by Tara Chand. Tara Chand informed other villagers who were present near Sheetla Mata Temple about the death of Tikkam Chand. The villagers gathered in the house of Ward Member Jagdish Chand. He called Pradhan Anjana Thakur, Up-Pradhan Rajinder and other members of the Panchayat. The villagers informed the members of the Panchayat about the arson and theft committed by Tikkam Chand. They also told that Tikkam Chand was sent to his home. He was heavily intoxicated and he fell in a state of intoxication. Forensic experts inspected the spot and preserved the samples. The police went to the spot and seized the remains of the dead body. Rahul made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., stating that Umesh Kumar had dragged him (Rahul) out of his home and taken him to Sheetla Mata Temple. Umesh, Tara Chand and Rajiv Sharma gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The call details were also checked and the persons were found in touch with each other during the night and in the morning. Rajiv Sharma, Vinay Sharma, Ashish an
The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the absence of specific evidence against the accused, while considering the principle of parity in bail decisions.
The court ruled that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient for conviction, and the petitioner is entitled to bail based on parity with co-accused granted bail.
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.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial evidence of interference with justice, allowing conditions to safeguard the process.
Confessional statements of co-accused to police inadmissible under CrPC Section 162 and Evidence Act Section 25; insufficient alone to deny bail without other incriminating material, per bail princip....
In double murder cases punishable by death, bail denied where prima facie circumstantial evidence establishes involvement, despite trial delay, emphasizing gravity of offence and punishment severity.
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 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 due to prima facie evidence, gravity of offence, and severe punishment despite trial progress arguments.
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.