Govind Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 136 of 2022, dated 27.06.2022 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bhuntar for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 380 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Shakuntla Devi was heavily drunk and alcohol was detected in her blood and viscera to the extent of 217.15 mg%. The prosecution asserted that the petitioner had a mobile phone which is false because the mobile phone does not belong to the bail petitioner. The police have not ascertained the ownership of the mobile number and have not procured the CCTV footage of the vicinity. The petitioner had disclosed his mobile number but the police did not conduct the investigation to ascertain its whereabouts. The petitioner belongs to a respectable society. He has roots in the society. There is no chance of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the court; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The police filed a status report asserting that the informant is the daughter of the deceased Shakuntla Devi. The deceased was residing alone after the death of her husband. The informant received a call on 26.6.2022 at 11.41 p.m. She picked up the phone but could not hear what was being said on the other side. She called back. The call was received by one person who revealed that Aunty was pelting the stones and that she should be counselled. The informant inquired as to what he was doing in the middle of the night. The informant suspected that somebody was quarrelling with her mother. She called Jugdei and asked her to verify the facts. Jugdei went to the spot and found the dead body of Shakuntla. The matter was reported to the police. The police recorded the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police picked up the articles lying on the spot. The accused revealed on inquiry that he had run away with Kaushalya. Shakuntla scolded him. The police checked the call detail record of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was in the vicinity of the area where the dead body was found. He had thrown a mobile phone when he was apprehended. He could not give any satisfactory reason for throwing the mobile phone. The police arrested the petitioner. He got recovered the stone which was used by him for hitting. The deceased also stated that he could get one bed sheet, one silver necklace, two silver bangles and one mobile recovered. However, these articles were not recovered as they were washed away in the flowing water. The cause of death was head injury caused by blunt force as per the postmortem report. 217.15 mg. % ethyl alcohol was found in the blood of the deceased. As per the report of analysis, the DNA from the hair of the socks of the petitioner matched with the DNA from the blood of the deceased. The police prepared the challan and presented it before the Court of learned Session Judge on 22.07.2023.

I have heard Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police are claiming that the petitioner owns a mobile number which was found in the vicinity of the place where the dead body was recovered. However, the petitioner does not own any mobile number and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner got recovered the stone which was used by him to hit the deceased. The mobile phone was thrown by the petitioner when he was apprehended by the police. The location of that very mobile was found in the vicinity of the place where the dead body was recovered. Hence, in these circumstances, the question of ownership does not arise. The DNA taken from the hair of the socks of the petitioner matched with the DNA taken from the blood sample of the deceased. This clearly shows that the petitioner was present at the scene of the crime and in the absence of any explanation, he is liable for the commission of murder. 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 record 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:-

“12. 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) Frivolity 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 status report filed by the police shows that the petitioner had thrown a mobile phone when he was apprehended by the police. The police checked the call details record of the mobile phone and it was found to be in the vicinity of the place where the dead body was found. This is the first circumstance to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime.

The petitioner got recovered the stone which was used for the commission of the offence. This is the second substance to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime.

DNA taken from the hair lifted from the socks worn by the petitioner matched with the DNA taken from the blood sample of the deceased. This clearly shows that the hair of the deceased was found in the socks of the petitioner. The petitioner does not have any explanation for the presence of the hair of the deceased on his socks. Since he was also found in the vicinity as per his mobile location, therefore, the only inference which can be drawn, at this stage, is that the petitioner is connected with the murder of the deceased. Hence the submission that the petitioner was falsely implicated and there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime is not acceptable.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and the petitioner cannot be released on bail. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.