Abdul Habib vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

Bail petitioner Abdul Habib, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 243 of 2018, dated 3.12.2018, under Sections 302, 341, 506 and 201 IPC registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

Perusal of status report filed by the respondent in terms of order dated 30.5.2020, reveals that on 2.12.2018, complainant Ajay Kumar got his statement recorded under S.154 CrPC alleging therein that on 2.12.2018, slab of new house of Sultan Ali was being laid and in that work, person namely Rukam Deen, was also working as a labourer. He stated that after finishing the aforesaid work at 8.30 PM, Rukam Deen went towards his house on foot but immediately after his departure, he alongwith his landlord, having heard noises, found Rukam Deen lying on road in injured condition at a distance of 70-80 metres from his house. Above named complainant alleged that it appeared that Rukam Deen had suffered injuries after being hit by some vehicle. Since condition of Rukam Deen was serious, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh from RH Una, where he succumbed to his injuries on 7.12.2018. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR in question came to be lodged initially against unknown persons, but subsequently during investigation, police found involvement of bail petitioner Abdul Habib. On 6.12.2018, person namely Mohd. Yusuf got his statement recorded and disclosed to Police that on 2.12.2018, he had also gone to the site of construction. At 9.30 pm he received a telephonic call from Sultan Ali, who happened to be brother-in-law of bail petitioner that Habib gave beatings to Rukam Deen after some altercation and thereafter chased him in his vehicle. Sultan Ali also informed Mohd. Yusuf that Rukam Deen has received injury in the incident and at present is being taken to Hospital at Amb. Investigation reveals that Rukam Deen disclosed to Modh. Yusuf in ambulance in the presence of Shukal Deen, Salam Deen and Farid Mohd. that firstly the bail petitioner Habib gave him beatings and then crushed him under his vehicle. Salam Deen recorded aforesaid statement of Rukam Deen in his mobile. In the aforesaid background, FIR in question came to be lodged against the bail petitioner and since 7.12.2018, he is behind the bars.

Learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with respect to pendency of trial before learned trial Court contends that though at this stage, nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, bail petitioner does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Bhatnagar, further states that the statements of number of prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded and as such, it would not be in the interests of justice to enlarge the petitioner at this stage, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, rather may dissuade the remaining prosecution witnesses from deposing against him. While referring to the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded till date, Mr. Bhatnagar, contends that it stands duly established on record that the bail petitioner first picked up quarrel with the deceased Rukam Deen and then crushed him under his vehicle, as such prayer having been made on his behalf deserves outright rejection. Lastly Mr. Bhatnagar contends that before filing of petition at hand, petitioner had approached this court in similar proceedings, which were dismissed as withdrawn, and in these proceedings, no changed circumstance, if any, has been indicated, as such, present petition is not maintainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court finds that Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and at present prosecution witnesses are being examined. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse statements of PW-1 to PW-3 recorded by learned trial Court, contends that no case much less under Section 302 IPC is made out against bail petitioner. Having carefully perused statements made by prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW -3, this court is not inclined to accept aforesaid contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner because perusal of same nowhere suggests that aforesaid witnesses have not supported prosecution case, rather, statements as referred to above, if read in conjunction with each other, clearly indicate that on the date of alleged incident, bail petitioner first picked up quarrel with deceased Rukam Deen and then crushed him under his vehicle. Leaving everything aside, report dated 12.2.2019 of FSL adduced on recorded by investigating agency reveals that the DNA profile of Rukam Deen has completely matched with the DNA of Ext. P5 i.e. blood scrapping from the car and as such, this courts finds no force in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated

Vide judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed in CrMP(M) No. 2192 of 2019, earlier bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter, no changed circumstance, if any has been indicated in this petition enabling this court to reconsider the matter for grant of bail. Besides above, this Court finds that statements of only three witnesses have been recorded, whereas remaining material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge bail petitioner on bail at this juncture.

Consequently bail petition is dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the bail petitioner is behind the bars for the last around two years, this court hopes and trusts that the learned Court below would conclude the trial expeditiously preferably, on or before 31.12.2020. Registry of this Court to apprise learned Court below, with regard to passing of the instant order, enabling it do the needful in terms of the instant judgment.