IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Room Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1787 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for bail based on health and delay. (Para 1 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. bail petition filed under bnss due to health conditions. (Para 2) |
| 3. details of the incident and charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. defense arguments aiming to establish non-involvement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. health conditions of the petitioner and implications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. arguments highlighting insufficient evidence supporting the petitioner's involvement. (Para 19) |
| 7. state's stance on petitioner's health and trial delay. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. timeline and procedural history of trial. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 29) |
| 9. legal precedents and implications of trial delays. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. evidential burden and serious nature of charges. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. court's observations on defense's conduct. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 12. final dismissal of the bail application. (Para 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court under Section483 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (in short ‘ BNSS ’) seeking bail in case FIR No. 239 of 2021, dated 26.8.2021, registered in Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 302 , 307, 323, 325, 326, 201, 147, 148, 149, 440, 354, 354-B, 109 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’), Section 25 of ARMS ACT and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w) & 3 (2)(va) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as SC&ST Act).
2. On behalf of the petitioner, apart from the prayer for enlarging the petitioner on regular bail, prayer for interim bail for5-6 months on health grounds has also been made.
3. Prayer for interim bail has been made in this petition mainly on the grounds of health condition of the petitioner as well as delay in progress of trial for non-appearance/examination of the complainant during past one year, and there is no evidence on record regarding involvement of the petitioner in commission of the offence.
4. Status Report stands filed. Record was also made available.
5. Prosecution case is that on 25.8.2021 at about 7:30 P.M. an information was received in Police Station, Kullu that at near Saeubag at Chhururu, some mishap had occurred. This information was transmitted by Police Station staff to QRT team and to SI Kushal Kumar, the then SHO, who was on patrolling. SI Kushal Kumar, out of his Patrolling Party, deputed ASI Vij Ram and Constable Om Parkash to reach Regional Hospital, Kullu to handle the situation on arrival of injured and alongwith remaining team of Patrolling Party he rushed to spot. On reaching near Café Water Edge (hereinafter referred as Café) at Chhururu, he met Constables of QRT Team of Kullu Police who were controlling the traffic on the spot, managing preservation of the spot and were waiting for Ambulance to shift injured persons from spot. Son of victim Yuma Devi and other onlookers were also present on the spot. Paras Ram was lying in katcha portion of road on side of road. He was bleeding badly and at some distance from him, in the middle of the road, his broken vehicle was there. On left front seat thereof injured Yuma Devi was crying due to pains. SI Kushal Kumar instead of waiting for Ambulance directed QRT Team and son of victim to shift injured to the Hospital in his Police vehicle. Thereafter on reaching the Hospital, treatment of injured was started in emergency. During treatment, statement of Yuma Devi was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by ASI Vij Ram, on the basis of which FIR was registered under Sections 307 , 320, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Section 25 of ARMS ACT and Section 3 of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
6. Keeping in view serious condition of victims during night, they were referred to Medical College and Hospital, Nerchowk, Mandi. As provisions of SC&ST Act were attracted, therefore, in compliance of communication dated 26.8.2021 issued by Superintendent of Police, Kullu, investigation was transferred
The court ruled that strong evidence existed against the accused for serious crimes, and health concerns and trial delays did not justify bail.
Bail denied in serious assault/murder case as CCTV footage, eye-witness identification of presence and participation with co-accused establish prima facie involvement, despite statement contradiction....
The court ruled that the presence of the petitioner in CCTV footage and witness statements constituted a prima facie case, justifying the denial of bail.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trials violates the accused's right to liberty and mandates release on bail to avoid indefinite incarceration.
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
The court determined the necessity for bail based on the absence of direct allegations against certain petitioners, while evidence of serious involvement warranted denial for another.
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances; absence of such change upholds previous bail rejections.
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.