Ashok Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail on the grounds that during the trial,

the material witnesses have not supported the case set up by the prosecution.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 31.07.2020,

learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, HP, dismissed the petition.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the

petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed

was more than three years. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner, which led to the registration of the FIR, mentioned above, are that on 16.1. 2019, on receiving

information about the death of Baldev Singh, due to a fall from a cliff on being kicked by the accused, the police recorded the statement of Vipan

Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which led to registration of FIR mentioned above. The complainant alleged that he, Baldev Singh (deceased),

Sahab Singh, Jagdish and Bhagat Ram, work as labours in Baira Syul Project Surgani. On 15.1.2019, after their duty hours, they reached a liquor

vend. Ashok Kumar accused-petitioner and Bhim Singh were already there. Ashok Kumar told Vipan (complainant) and Baldev Singh (deceased),

that a boy has born to his brother’s wife and he would give them a party. After that all of them started consuming liquor. In between, one Sunil

Kumar, driver of HRTC, reached there. Except Sahab Singh, they all consumed liquor. At 9.00 p.m., they started returning to their homes. After

walking 50 meters, Ashok Kumar, the petitioner, all of a sudden, started quarrelling with Bhim Singh. On this, the complainant and Baldev Singh

intervened and separated them. However, Ashok Kumar was not in his senses and Bhim Singh started running. On this, Ashok Kumar chased him.

To save himself, Bhim Singh got down from a retaining wall. On this, Baldev Singh (deceased) caught hold of Bhim Singh by saying that this place is

very dangerous and he could fall and told him that they would calm down Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar had taken off his shirt and Baldev Singh was

holding the same in his hand. In between Ashok Kumar reached there and gave a kick blow to Baldev Singh, who fell down the cliff and rolled upto

500 meters and died on the spot. During the investigation, the police recovered the shirt of Ashok Kumar from 20 feet below the road.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General contends that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very

stringent conditions.

During investigation, all the persons, who were present at the spot have narrated the same version. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel for the

petitioner has referred to certain statements from the report filed under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., however, he read them from his file and did not

annex the same to the petition. This Court cannot place reliance upon such statements in the absence of the same being part of the record. On the

face of it, it is a case supported by number of eye witnesses and Baldev Singh, who wanted to save the life of Bhim Singh, lost his own life because of

the high headedness and the kick, which the accused-petitioner gave to him. Thus no case for grant of bail is made out and the petition is dismissed .

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made a number of other arguments, but given the fact that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the

above-mentioned reasons, discussion of the same, will be an exercise in futility.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.