IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Mohammad Faique @ Aayan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1820 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details surrounding the case and fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented for bail based on trial delays. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 3. court considerations regarding bail application. (Para 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 4. court's decision to grant bail with conditions. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 5. final conclusion on the bail application. (Para 53) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner, herein, is in judicial lock-up in case FIR No.7 of2020 dated 21.1.2020, under Sections 302 , 147, 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (‘IPC’ for short), registered in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. He has approached this Court, under Section 483 of the Bhartya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’), seeking regular bail in the matter.
2. In status report, filed on behalf of respondent-State, statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh has been reiterated, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused.
3. According to status report, on 21.1.2020, an information was received from ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, in Police Station Parwanoo that a person injured in a quarrel has been brought to the hospital for treatment, whereupon HC Vinod Kumar alongwith others had rushed to the hospital, where statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he had stated that on that day, i.e. 20.12.2020, at about 11 p.m., when he was sitting in his vehicle at Sector-6 Parwanoo, near Negi Petrol Pump, he had received a call on his mobile phone from Raju, who was friend of crane owner Pushap Behl, requesting him to accompany Madan Lal in the crane, loaded with a vehicle, upto Delhi. Complainant had agreed for that and had come near the crane whereon vehicle of Delhi bearing registration No.DL-6CM- 4200 was loaded an crane driver Madan Lal was standing near the crane and a white coloured taxi and 5-6 young men standing around the taxi, were also there and the taxi driver was demanding fare, which was paid by one of those young men. Thereafter, the taxi driver left the place. Immediately thereafter, the man, who had paid the fare to the taxi driver, had started asking Madan Lal to drop them at Delhi immediately at that time, whereupon complainant had enquired Madan Lal about the status of fuel in the crane and Madan Lal had replied that fuel tank was to be filled. Thereafter, complainant Madan Lal and a young man of Delhi vehicle boarded the crane and other persons sat in the vehicle loaded on the crane and crane was taken to Negi Petrol Pump and fuelled for Rs.2000/- paid by the occupants of Delhi vehicle and then they started towards TTR to proceed to Delhi, but suddenly it started raining heavily and upon this complainant Rajan Kumar Singh had parked the crane at a distance of 35-40 metres from the Petrol Pump on the right side of the road. On asking by young man, sitting in the crane, for reason to stop, Madan Lal had told that neither the wipers nor one of the head lights of the crane were working and there was some defect in the crane. It was further told by the deceased that he will take them to Delhi next morning but the young men did not accept that and had started scuffling and arguing with deceased Madan Lal in the crane itself, whereupon Madan Lal had telephonically informed owner of crane Pushap Behl that there was a defect in the crane and that the occupants of the car had been forcing him to move for Delhi and arguing and beating him, whereupon the crane owner had asked Madan Lal to lock the crane and to sleep in any other vehicle with further assurance that he had been coming on the spot, whereupon complainant Rajan Kumar Singh and Madan Lal got down from the crane and the persons from the Delhi Vehicle had also deboarded the crane and car and started beating Madan L
Jasbir Singh Vs. State of H.P.
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Subhadra Kumari Vs. State of H.P.
Shaheen Welfare Assn. Vs. Union of India
Prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in trials violates the accused's right to liberty and mandates release on bail to avoid indefinite incarceration.
Prolonged detention without trial is unjust, and the right to a speedy trial must be upheld, leading to the granting of bail.
The court ruled that strong evidence existed against the accused for serious crimes, and health concerns and trial delays did not justify bail.
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
Bail granted in murder case due to hostile key witness rendering prima facie accusation doubtful, prolonged incarceration over four years amid delayed trial, no antecedents, upholding Article 21 pers....
In murder cases, prolonged pre-trial detention and trial delays do not warrant bail if prima facie involvement exists, offence gravity high, tampering risk present, and custody serves justice.
The court emphasized the need to balance the individual's right to personal freedom with the right of police investigation, and considered the delay in trial, lack of prima facie evidence, and absenc....
The right to speedy trial under Article 21 can justify bail due to inordinate delays, despite the serious nature of criminal charges.
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.