Bail denied in murder case due to prima facie evidence, gravity of offence, and severe punishment despite trial progress arguments.

Chet Ram …. Petitioner Versus State of HP …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner : Mr Vinod Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for regular bail in FIR No. 207 of 2023, dated 01.11.2023, registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. It has been asserted that the petitioner has been implicated based on a concocted story. The petitioner belongs to

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

a respectable family. He is a young person aged 24 years. He has a family to look after, including aged and ailing parents. The petitioner’s wife is residing in the house of her sister-in-law, along with two minor children aged three and five years, after the incarceration of the petitioner, as there is no one to look after her. The petitioner is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated. The bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. No case is made out against thue petitioner based on the material collected by the prosecutioon. The witness number three stated during the cross-examCination that the petitioner had tried to intervene between the victim and the co-accused. The father of the victim also admitted the rowdy behaviour of the victim during his cross-examination. The prosecution has only examined nine Hwitnesses, and 13 witnesses are yet to be examined. The learned Trial Court had listed the matter for recording the statements of four witnesses on 16.05.2026. The trial is not likely to conclude soon, and this violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the Medical Officer informed the Police Station on 31.10.2023 at about 11:28 PM that one injured person was brought to the hospital. The police went to the hospital for verification. The police found the dead body of a person with multiple injuries. The father of the deceased, Kehar Singh, revealed during the enquiry that he was told by Guddu on 31.10.2023 at about 9 PM that his son was lyinug on the roadside. Kehar Singh and Nikhil reached the spoto and found that Harish Chand (since deceased) was lying oCn the roadside, and he was not talking to anyone. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Kehar Singh subsequently made a statement that he had seen Harish with Sunil Negi, Hira Lal, Chet Ram s/o Surat Ram and Chet Ram Hs/o Gheru. He suspected their involvement. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police found after the investigation that Sunil Negi had accompanied the deceased Harish Chand before his death. Chet Ram and Rakesh had given beatings to Harish Chand. Hira Lal and Chet Ram S/o Surat Ram, had concealed this fact from the police. The police arrested them. Petitioner Chet Ram made a statement leading to the recovery of the stick. Rakesh also made a disclosure statement, leading to the recovery of a grip. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the injuries noticed on the dead body could have been caused by the means of the weapons recovered by the police. The police found that Sunil Negi and Harish had consumed alcohol. They slapped Rakesh Kumar. Chet Ram (petitioner) and Rakesh went to Harish and gave him beatings. Petitioner Chet Ram had inflicted a blow on the head of Harish, which led to his death. Hira Lal and Chet Ram concealed the fauct that the petitioner and Rakesh had killed the deceased. oThe police filed the charg