Jeevan Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:- ASI Rakesh Kumar, IO Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra,

present in person with case record.

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 34

of 2020, dated 09.04.2020, registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 302, 325, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan Vaid, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him and

status report will also demonstrate that no offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made, as it was a case of sudden fight, single injury

and as from the date of alleged incident, on which the deceased is alleged to have been injured by the petitioner, the deceased died after 24 days.

According to the learned Counsel, cause of death in terms of the medical report is also not attributable to the injuries but on account of heart failure.

Opposing the bail petition, Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the

offences alleged against the petitioner and further the fact that the petitioner is a local resident of the area, in case, he is released on bail by the Court,

the same will adversely affect the trial because there is each and every possibility that the petitioner may influence or try to win over the prosecution

witnesses. He has also argued that whether or not the deceased died on account of the injuries suffered by him, is a matter of trial, and at this stage,

the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail that the cause of death is

heart failure. On these bases, he has prayed for the dismissal of the bail petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General and also gone through the status reports as well as

order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Dharamshala, District Kangra dated 02.09.2020, vide which, the application filed by the

petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail stood dismissed by the learned Court below.

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which without any doubt, is a grave and heinous offence.

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged against him, is a matter of trial. At this stage, it is not prudent for the Court to go into the

merit of the case and return findings as to whether on the basis of investigation, which has been carried out, any case is made out against the

petitioner or not for the reasons that now investigation

 report has been filed in the Court concerned and the matter is at the stage of consideration of charge and the petitioner has got a right to put forth

his contentions before the learned Court below when the case is taken up by the learned Court below for the purpose of consideration on charges. At

this stage, the Court has to take into consideration three facts while deciding as to whether a person is entitled for bail or not and these are (a) the

gravity of the offence; (b) possibility of the petitioner evading the trial in case he is ordered to be released on bail; and (c) possibility of the petitioner

again indulging in the same offences in the event of release on bail.

In the present case, as already observed hereinabove, offence alleged against the petitioner is of culpable homicide amounting to murder, which is

undoubtedly a heinous offence. The Court concurs with the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General that at this stage, in case, the

petitioner is released on bail, there is each and every possibility that he may try to influence and win over the prosecution witnesses which will hamper

the course of the trial. A perusal of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 02.09.2020, vide which

said Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner, demonstrates that the reasons assigned therein are cogent and further learned Counsel for the

petitioner has not been able to point out any change in circumstances as from the date of order passed by the learned Court below, so as to warrant

interference by this Court.

Accordingly, in view of discussion held hereinabove, this petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

It is clarified that findings, which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition, are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present

bail petition and learned trial Court shall not be influenced, in any manner, by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this

petition during the course of trial of the case.