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.

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. 56 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024, registered at Police Station, West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 120-B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(V) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC&ST Act). The FIR was lodged on distorted facts and no such incident occurred. The police arrested seven persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shimla and he is in judicial custody in District Jail, Shimla (Kaithu). The police filed a charge sheet before the competent Court. The names of certain other persons were included after the investigation. The newly added persons applied for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The role attributed to the petitioner is similar to the role attributed to the persons enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Eye witnesses had not named the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as an outsourced employee in the department of I&PH and he lost his job after his arrest. His parents are suffering from various ailments and there is no person to look after them. 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 informant made a complaint to the police on1.4.2024 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 asked Sewa Nand that she would call 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 cremate the dead body to which she replied in negative. Med Ram and informant went to the village and found that the dead body was cremated 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 Jagdish Chand. He called Pradhan Anjana Thakur, Up-Pradhan Rajinder and other members of the Panchayat. The villagers informed the Member 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