IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Ravinder Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 192 of 2025
Decided On : 24-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 392, 201, and 120-B - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested for serious offences, has been in custody for over two years with no evidence of involvement presented - The trial is delayed, but the petitioner is responsible for adjournments - The court emphasized the heinous nature of the crime and the potential for capital punishment. (Paras 1, 10, 11)
(B) Bail - Parameters for granting bail - The Supreme Court has established that bail should ensure the accused's presence during trial and not be misused to obstruct justice - Conditions for bail must be reasonable and related to the administration of justice. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for the murder of Baba, who had previously lodged an FIR against him. Evidence includes ATM withdrawals from Baba's account and CCTV footage linking the petitioner to the crime. The trial is ongoing with significant delays attributed to the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is prima facie involved in a heinous crime, and the delay in trial cannot be used as a basis for bail.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's involvement in the crime and the justification for denying bail based on the nature of the offence and trial delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the crime and the petitioner's responsibility for trial delays justified the denial of bail, emphasizing the need to ensure justice and the presence of the accused.
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. 54 of 2022, dated 11.6.2022, registered at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than two years and five months. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 16.4.2025 and 17.4.2025. The prosecution has examined three witnesses out of 63 witnesses cited by it. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. There is nothing on record to show the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner has deep roots in the society, and he is not likely to abscond. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police were informed that Baba Shiv Narayan Puri was not picking up his mobile. The police searched for him but could not trace him. Subsequently, an e-mail was received in which it was mentioned that the mobile phones of Baba were operating in Punjab. The police obtained the call detail record, checked the CCTV footage and found that the vehicle of Baba had moved towards Chandigarh. It was also found that money was being withdrawn at Chandigarh/Mohali from Baba’s account. The police obtained the CCTV footage of the ATMs from where the money was withdrawn. The mobile phones were put on the tracking, and it was found that a SIM issued in the name of petitioner Ravinder Kumar Singh was being used in the mobile phone of Baba. It also had an alternative number issued in the name of Pradeep Singh. The police checked the record of Raghukul Guest House, owned by Pradeep Singh, and found that petitioner Ravinder Kumar Singh had stayed in the guest house from 11.6.2022 till 13.6.2022 and from 14.6.2022 to 16.6.2022. The CCTV footage of the guest house was checked, and the person who was withdrawing the money from the ATM was found to be the same who was staying in the guest house. The police seized the record of the guest house. The other mobile phone was tracked, and it was found to be using a SIM issued in the name of Dharminder. The location of the mobile phone was found near Kot, Baleyan, Theog, on 5.6.2022 when Baba was found missing. The police found that the account number linked to the mobile phone of Dharminder had a deposit of Rs.3.00 lacs between 15.6.2022 and 16.6.2022 and a withdrawal of Rs.1,70,000/- through cheque. The police arrested Dharminder, who admitted that he, petitioner Ravinder and Bhupinder came to Kotkhai and murdered Baba. They transported the dead body in a vehicle of Baba and threw it at Giripul. The dead body was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement, which was identified by the younger brother of Baba. Police checked the CCTV footage and found that an Alto car was coming from Chandigarh to Shimla in which three persons were travelling. Police seized the CCTV footage. It was also found that Dharminder, petitioner-Ravinder and Bhpinder had stayed in Hotel HC Punjab Inn from 6.6.2022. The record was seized. It was found that Bhupinder was operating the mobile phone issued in the name of Kalawati. The location of the mobile phone was found to be in Shimla. Subsequently, the mobile phone was switched off on 8.6.2022. Earlier, the SIM issued in the name of Bhupinder was used in the same mobile phone. The police also arrested petitioner Ravinder and recorded the statement of Suman Bisht, who stated that she had handed over her SIM to petitioner Ravinder. Bhupinder was also arrested. The statement of Ravinder was recorded under Section 27, and the vehicle of Baba was recovered from Balongi (Mohali). Petitioner Ravinder and Bhupinder identified the place where they
AI
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 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 denied in serious criminal cases where there is a risk of witness intimidation and ongoing prosecution, as established in relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Bail applications require a material change in circumstances for reconsideration after a previous denial, ensuring the accused's presence during trial without undue delay.
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 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 in heinous offences against minors is not granted lightly, considering the nature of the crime and the right to a speedy trial.
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....
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 emphasized that the heinous nature of the crime and the evidence against the petitioner justified the denial of bail, despite claims of trial delays.
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.