Hanuman vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is under arrest, on being arraigned as an accused in FIR Number 93/19 dated 23.9.2019, registered under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25, 30/54/59 of the Arms Act, in Police Station, Haripur, District Kangra, H.P., disclosing non-bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

While issuing notices to the State, the Court had requested Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General to procure status report either through hp@nic.in and also send the scanned copy or PDF copy of the status report to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on his WhatsApp number.

Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has filed the status report through e-mail, printout whereof has been placed on record. He further submits that he has sent a copy of the status report to learned Counsel for the petitioner on his WhatsApp number.

I have read the status report(s) and heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State.

FACTS

The gist of the First Information Report and the status report is that on 22. 9.2019, one Mohan Singh filed a complaint in the Police Station, Haripur, District Kangra that his son Ashwani Kumar is missing alongwith his car of make DZIRE TOUR. On 23.9.2019, the Police found a deadbody on the Baathupul Ranital Railway Track which was later on identified as that of Ashwani Kumar. On postmortem of body, three deformed bullets were recovered. After tracing the phone number of the deceased, it was found that the last call to him was from the mobile of one Lalit Kumar at 11:30 a.m. on 22.9.2019 for about 35 seconds. However, after inquiry Lalit Kumar told the Police that his phone was used by an unknown man to make phone call to the deceased. The unknown man had asked to use his phone on the pretext that his own phone was not working and he urgently needed to call at home. On 25.9.2019, the Police got a signal that the phone of the deceased had been switched on with another number in it. They traced the phone back to one Veer Singh @ Sunny. Veer Singh told the Police that he found the said phone nearby Bathupul Railway Track on 23.9.2019, when he was going on foot from there and started using it on 25.9.2019. On 26.10.2019, the Police got a tip that the car of the deceased, of make DZIRE TOUR was found parked in the parking of family quarter of the Army area. Prior to this, no CCTV footage was found of the car. The engine and chassis number of the found car matched with the number of the car of the deceased. Moreover, the Aadhar Card of the deceased was also found inside the drawer of the car. The Police also found pieces of broken number plate of the car. Upon inquiry from the people nearby, the Police found that the car had been parked there by one Mr. Hanuman, the present bail petitioner. People also told that the car had been moved few days earlier from the spot and then had again been placed on the same spot. Upon questioning by the Police, the present bail petitioner denied all the accusations but later on admitted that he had removed the car few days earlier in order to get the grass removed during inspection of the area. He however, was not able to explain who placed the car back. Moreover, he stated that the keys of the car were found by him inside the car and were still there, but after search by the Police, no keys were found in the car. Additionally, the Police also found a 0.32 bore revolver with the petitioner. Finding the revolver from the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the car of the deceased was found parked near the house of the bail petitioner, was enough to raise suspicion in the mind of the Police and they arrested him on 27.10.2019. After arrest of the petitioner, the keys of the car were found from his person. During investigation, the accused also made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, based on which the Police recovered the revolver assigned to him by the Army alongwith 11 live bullets from a bush within the Army area. The accused told the Police that he had been posted at Alhilal Army area in July, 2019 and had been living in the family quarter with his wife and son since then. He further revealed to the Police that on 9th or 10th September, 2019, he had come home at 11:00 a.m. and before he could enter his house, he noticed that an unknown man came out of his car and went inside the house of the accused, where the accused's wife was present alone. He waited for one hour for the unknown man to come out. After some time, the unknown man came out from the house and drove away in his car. On seeing that man going into his house, where his wife was alone, the accused started suspecting that the unknown person had illicit relations with his wife. After this, the bail petitioner stalked the unknown man to find out his whereabouts and realised that the unknown man was the deceased Ashwani Kumar. On 21.9.2019, at around 4:00 p.m., the petitioner went to the deceased and told him that he wanted to hire his taxi to go to a particular place. However, he clarified that he wanted to hire that taxi for the next day and not for that particular day. Thereafter, they exchanged their phone numbers to better coordinate their trip on the next day. On 22.9.2019, the bail petitioner went in search of the deceased at around 10:30-11:00 a.m. at Baijnath chowk, but could not find the taxi. Thus, it is at this time that the bail petitioner used the phone of one Lalit Kumar at around 11:30 a.m. to call the deceased. Once the deceased had arrived, the petitioner sat in the taxi and asked him to drive. He took the deceased to the Bathupul Ranital Railway Track. He asked the deceased to step out of the car on the pretext that he wanted to take pictures and led the deceased little further down the road, where upon getting opportunity, he shot the deceased four times from his revolver. He successfully aimed at the deceased on three occasions, missing one, which ultimately lead to the demise of the deceased as cumulatively the three bullets proved to be fatal. After killing the deceased, the present petitioner got into the car of the deceased and drove it back to his family quarter and parked it in the Army area.

PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY

No previous criminal history.

SUBMISSIONS

The learned counsel for the bail petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and he has nothing to do with the said allegations. He further states that petitioner has to shoulder responsibility of his family and also submitted that his bail petition be considered on humanitarian grounds in view of the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with victim(s) and/or witnesses. The Court is under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused, society, and State.

For the purpose of deciding this bail petition, the evidence qua recovery of the revolver alongwith 11 live bullets; and the three bullets recovered from the body of the deceased during his postmortem, confirming to have been fired from this revolver, per report of the ballistic expert, fails to make out a special case for grant of bail.

Secondly, the Police have recovered the keys of the car from the accused and have also seized the car from the Army area where the accused had his residential quarter. Since, it was an Army area, no civilian could have parked their car in that area. The deceased had also gone missing in this very car and the presence of the car in the vicinity of the residential premises of the accused makes out a prima facie case over and above the deficiencies pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner.

Thirdly, the tower location of the accused matched with the tower location of the deceased on 22.9.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drafted an elaborate petition arguing on the points of motive, lack of evidence with regard to CCTV footage, lack of finger prints on the vehicle, act & conduct of the petitioner, and lack of CDR showing the same location of the bail petitioner and the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited large number of judicial precedents in support of his contentions.

Even if hypothetically all these submissions are accepted, still the petitioner has failed to make out a special case for grant of bail.

Given above, there is no merit in the present petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed.