Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Sant Parkash - Applicant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2942 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
For the Applicant :Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Astha Kohli.
For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G.
The severity of charges under the IPC and Arms Act outweighs the applicant's health concerns, justifying the denial of bail.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Bail application during trial - Applicant, arrested under serious charges, asserted innocence and cited ill health as grounds for bail - Court held custodial interrogation was not required and that serious nature of the offence weighs against bail - Previous bail requests already denied. (Paras 1-24)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of murdering a laborer during a quarrel, with multiple witnesses confirming the altercation and subsequent shooting. Medical reports indicated the applicant's serious health issues, necessitating medical care. Legal proceedings have commenced with the investigation completed.
Findings of Court:
Bail application denied due to the seriousness of the charge and the ongoing nature of trial proceedings, while ensuring medical treatment is provided to the applicant.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the nature of the accusations and personal health issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that the severity of the charges prevents granting bail, signalling societal implications of releasing someone accused of murder, despite medical considerations.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for bail by the applicant (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. details of the investigation and incident (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. arguments against bail based on precedents (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court's reasoning and conclusion on bail application (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Applicant Sant Prakash, aged 49 years, who is in judicial custody, in connection with FIR No. 313 of 2023, dated 12.12.2023, under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC”) and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT , registered with Police Station, Tahliwal, Una, H.P. has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’).
2. By way of the present application, he has sought indulgence of this Court to release him on bail, during pendency of the trial.
3. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case and no legal evidence could be collected by the prosecution to connect him, with the alleged offence.
4. Apart from this, he has also given his ill health, as one of the grounds to release him on bail, by pleading that he is suffering from spinal problem and the Doctor has advised him to take home remedies, painkillers and physio-therapy. The Doctor is also stated to have advised that in case, the proper precaution is not taken, the problem may aggravate. Due to said problem, he allegedly could not follow daily pursuits. In this regard, he has also pleaded that the Doctor of Regional Hospital, Una, on 20.12.2023, had advised him for MRI. In the city scan of the Cervical Spine, the Doctor has observed as under:
“(i) Loss of Cervical lordiosis which is ; “a condition where neck’s natural curve is loss or reversed”, due to which he had sensation of pins and needles in his hands and continuous headaches.
(ii) In the city scan dated 03.01.2024 it was observed; mild anterior wedging of vertebra noted at L-3, L-5 level, which is a condition of vertebral compression fracture that occurs when the front of the vertebra collapsed.
(iii) It was further observed that there is a condition of early degenerative condition in the dorsolumber spine. Though, this condition is usually seen in aged person but in exceptional circumstances can also be caused by tumors, infections and traumatic injury which is the case herein.”
5. According to the applicant, thereafter, the he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, on 27.2.2024, and the Doctor gave a comprehensive opinion stating the above-mentioned diagnosis and issues reiterating its affects. The applicant had also remained hospitalized, in Regional Hospital, Una, w.e.f. 20.9.2024 to 3.10.2024. Thereafter, the Doctor has allegedly advised the applicant the physio-therapy, for about25 days, at PGI, Chandigarh.
6. It is the further case of the applicant that on 7.11.2024, he was medically examined at PGI, Chandigarh, where, he was advised for hospitalization and continuous physiotherapy, for six weeks. He was hospitalized there and was discharged on 11.11.2024.
7. The applicant has relied upon the advise of the Doctors at PGI, Chandigarh, according to which, he should avoid travelling and difficult postures.
8. According to the further stand of the applicant, investigation, in the present case, is complete and the matter is now pending before the learned trial Court. All these facts have been highlighted to show that custodial interrogation of the applicant, is no longer required by the Police.
9. Alongwith the application, he has also annexed the medical record.
10. The applicant had earlier tried his luck, by moving bail application No. 261 of 2024, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P., which was dismissed, on 13.9.2024.
11. The applicant, through his counsel, has given certain undertakings, for which he is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to
