SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 962

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 
Sushil Kukreja, J.
Ramesh Kumar @ Bittu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 1963 of 2024
Decided On : 08-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General with Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

The presumption of innocence prevails, and bail is granted when insufficient evidence links the accused to the crime, emphasizing that deprivation of liberty is punitive unless necessary for trial attendance.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201 & 34 - Bail application - The petitioner seeks bail in a murder case, asserting innocence and lack of involvement in the crime, while prosecution argues against bail due to the gravity of the offense - The court finds insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule, not the exception. (Paras 1, 10, 11)

(B) Bail - The court reiterates that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial, and that deprivation of liberty is a punishment unless necessary to ensure attendance - The court cites precedents emphasizing that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Paras 7, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of murder in a case where the deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances. The prosecution claims a conspiracy among several individuals to kill the deceased over a drug deal. The petitioner argues he was not present at the crime scene and has been falsely implicated.

Findings of Court:
The court finds no satisfactory evidence linking the petitioner to the murder and allows bail, subject to conditions to ensure his presence at trial.

Issues: The main issues include the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner and the principles governing bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should not be incarcerated without sufficient evidence of his involvement in the crime, reaffirming the presumption of innocence and the general rule favoring bail.

Result: Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

By way of instant petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 45/2023, dated 15.08.2023, under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.08.2023 a telephonic information was received at Police Post Haripur Dhar that a person was found dead in suspicious circumstances. Accordingly, the police party left for Haripurdhar and found the corpse of deceased Rajender alias Pappu at Kharoti Khala. The police recorded the statement of Rajender Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C., who stated that today at about 8:40 p.m. his sister telephonically inquired from him that her husband Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) could not be seen anywhere. On this, when he started searching for his brother-in-law (Jija), he came to know that his brother-in-law was sitting in the hotel of Manoj Chhinta at Haripurdhar and on making inquiries, Manoj Chhinta disclosed to him that Rajender Singh alias Pappu (deceased) had left his homestay at about 6:30 p.m. At about 10 p.m. he was telephonically informed by Sunder Lalta that Rajender alias Pappu (deceased) was murdered by Kaka Manta and thereafter he was taken in a car and his corpse was thrown in a gorge near Kharoti Khala. Sunder Lalta also told him that Kaka Manta was accompanying Naresh and Singhta.

Thereafter, the complainant Rajender Kumar alognwith Ankit and Tanmay went to Kharoti Khala in search of the deceased and found the corpse of the deceased lying in the ghaasni at a distance of about 50-60 meters from the road. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR in question came to be registered and the investigation commenced. On 15.08.2023, accused Saurav Manta and Lucky were arrested. On 20.08.2023, Ramesh Chand alias Bittu surrendered before the police.

3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not at all involved in the alleged offence and the prosecution has linked him only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, as he was neither present at the place of occurrence, nor he had anything to do with the alleged offence. He further contended that one of the co-accused namely Rajat Lalta has already been released on bail by this Court, as such, the present petitioner also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case.

6. The perusal of the record reveals that on 14.08.2023, accused Rajat Lalta and Naresh Kumar and Jagdish alias JD were present at Lohandhar and in the meantime, Balbir alias Ballu also reached there. Accused Rajat Lalta brought one bottle of liquor there and except Jagdish alias JD, all of them had consumed liquor. Accused Naresh Kumar had also asked accused Saurav Manta alias Kaka on telephone to reach there. Since at that time accused Lucky was also present in the house of accused Saurav Manta, as such, both of them came to Lohandhar in a car bearing registration No. HP-08A-6468, where except Jagdish all of them had consumed liquor. Thereafter all of them went to Haripurdhar in the aforesaid car. There accused Rajat Lalta had purchased another bottle of liquor and at Haripurdhar, Ramesh Kumar alias Bittu (petitioner herein) also met them, from where, all of them went towards Nahan Side. A little ahead of Haripurdhar, all of them, except Jagdish consu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top