Chobe Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the police of Police Station Sadar, Kullu in FIR No. 346 of 2019, dated 30.11.2019 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 323, and 506 of IPC.

The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete and the challan has already been filed before the Court. The matter was listed on 18.11.2023 for the examination of the remaining witnesses. The petitioner is not required by the police for investigation. Ramesh Kumar-informant and Krishan Chand were examined, however, they did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. The petitioner has been in custody for more than three and a half years. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. The petitioner has roots in the society and he would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant, his younger brother Geep Chand and accused Sunil Kumar had gathered in the temple along with other persons. Sunil administered liquor to Geep Chand and thereafter gave him beatings. The victim revealed these facts to the informant. The information was given to the police. The police conducted the investigation and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner got the weapon of offence recovered. The victim subsequently succumbed to his injuries. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was craniocerebral damage impact consequent upon blunt trauma/surface impact over the head. Out of 17 witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined and the matter is now listed for the examination of remaining witnesses on 23.1.2024.

I have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that informant-Ramesh Kumar and Krishan Chand have not supported the prosecution case. They were declared hostile but nothing material could be elucidated by the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no evidence against the petitioner to justify his custody. The petitioner has been in custody for three and half years and the trial has not been completed. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. It cannot be said by reading the statements of two witnesses that there is no material against the petitioner. In any case, this Court is not to appreciate the evidence led before the Trial Court and it is for the learned Trial Court to appreciate the same at the time of the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein it was observed as under:-

The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts has been explained in the following words:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)”

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’

The present case has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The petitioner had earlier filed the bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu. Learned Sessions Judge, Kullu observed that it is not the case of the bail petitioner that no case has been made out from the evidence led by the prosecution so far. This shows that there is material available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime. Hence, the submission of Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General has some force that it is not permissible to grant bail based on the statements of two witnesses alone.

The petitioner submitted that the trial has not progressed and he is entitled to bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu found that there was a delay in the disposal of the trial but this was due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, which prevented the completion of the trial. Moreover, the petitioner has not filed copies of the order sheets to show that the delay was on the part of the prosecution and not on his part. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecution has failed to produce the evidence despite the time granted to it. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on the ground of delay alone.

The petitioner was named by the deceased as the person giving beatings to him; therefore, there is a dying declaration of the deceased to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime.

The status report shows that out of 17 witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined and the matter is now listed for recording the statements of remaining witnesses on 23.1.2024. Hence, it cannot be said that the trial of the petitioner is not likely to conclude soon.

Keeping in view the nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. Therefore, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

The observation made hereinabove shall confine to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.