Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Satnam Singh alias Satu Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 776 of 2025
Decided on : 09-05-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 325, 341; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(2)(v) - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for serious offences including murder - Petitioner claims innocence and false implication - Opposing party presents evidence of involvement, including CCTV footage and injuries sustained by the petitioner - Court considers parameters for granting bail as established in Ramratan v. State of M.P. and other precedents - Safety of witnesses and nature of the offence weigh against bail. (Paras 1, 7, 9, 10)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during investigation and trial, with conditions that facilitate justice and do not impede the investigation. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under FIR No. 26/23 for serious offences, claiming he was falsely implicated after sustaining injuries in an incident where another individual died. The petitioner asserts no murder case exists against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence, including CCTV footage, indicated the petitioner was involved in the attack, and releasing him on bail would endanger witness safety.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the petitioner's claim of innocence and the implications of releasing him on bail concerning witness safety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented showed the petitioner was not merely a victim but an aggressor, and the safety of witnesses was paramount in denying bail.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 26/23, dated 14.3.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act), at Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. An FIR No. 24/23, dated 14.3.2023, was registered on the complaint of the petitioner, Satnam Singh, regarding the incident. No case of murder is made out. The petitioner had also sustained grievous injuries, and he was undergoing treatment in AIIMS, Bilaspur. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply/status report asserting that the informant received a call from his brother Rohit on 13.3.2023 at 10.30 PM that some persons were searching for him (Rohit) and Sonu, and he (Rohit) should be taken away from the spot. The informant went to the spot and saw four persons assaulting Rohit and Sonu with an axe and an iron garari. The assailants were identified as Pradeep, Satnaam alias Sattu (the present petitioner), Amrik Singh and Nand Lal. They inflicted injuries on the person of Rohit and Sonu. The assailants went away after seeing the informant in a Pick-up bearing registration No. HP-69-0882. The informant followed them but could not apprehend them. Sukhdev alias Sonu died in the incident. Sukhdev alias Sonu had deposed in a murder case, and the persons had attacked Sonu and Rohit due to this enmity. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found that FIR No. 24/23, dated 14.3.2023 was registered at the instance of Satnam Singh, stating that Sonu, Rohit and other persons had attacked Satnam, Amrik Singh and Nand Lal with a kripan. They suffered injuries in the incident. Police recovered material objects from the spot. A blood-stained iron, a blood- stained axe and an iron pipe were recovered during spot inspection. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. As per the report of analysis, human blood was detected on the T-Shirt and lower of Amrik Singh, T-Shirt and lower of Nand Lal, vest, lower and shirt of Satnam, axe, iron pipe, iron rod, plastic handle, seat cover and broken glass pieces were lifted from the spot. The CCTV Footage and CDR were also taken into possession. As per the investigation, Satnam Singh was called by Nand Lal. He, Pradeep Kumar and Amrik Singh went to the spot in the Pick-up. Nand Lal revealed on the spot that Rohit had run towards Mahabaleshwar. Nand Lal, Pradeep and Amrik followed him to Mahabaleshwar. They were seen searching for something in the CCTV Footage. Nand Lal was armed with an iron rod. They waited for Rohit. The challan has been filed before the Court. Hence the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner had sustained injuries, and prima facie, a case of murder has not been made out. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner and other persons followed Rohit armed with deadly weapons. Therefore, the version of the petitioner that he is not involved in the commission of an offence is not correct. His presence on the spot is duly established by the presence of blood on his clothes. The trial is continuing, and releasing the petitioner on bail will affect the
The court emphasized that bail is denied based on the seriousness of the charges, evidence of involvement, and the need to protect witness safety.
The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.
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.
Bail applications require a material change in circumstances for reconsideration after a previous denial, ensuring the accused's presence during trial without undue delay.
The court established that the evidence did not support a murder charge under Section 302 IPC, indicating a potential culpable homicide, thus granting bail based on the circumstances of the case.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the crime and the petitioner's responsibility for trial delays, emphasizing the need for justice and the accused's presence.
The court emphasized that the gravity of the offence and the prima facie evidence against the petitioner justified the denial of bail, despite claims of insufficient evidence.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence to substantiate serious allegations, and the accused's rights must be balanced with the need for justice.
A subsequent bail application requires a material change in circumstances; the gravity of the offence can preclude bail even after prolonged custody.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious criminal cases where there is a risk of witness intimidation and ongoing prosecution, as established in relevant Supreme Court precedents.
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
