Jumat Ali vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 124/2021, dated 24.09.2021, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P..

Petitioner is facing trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. Prosecution evidence is in the process of being recorded.

It is alleged that petitioner and his co-accused namely Bhura caused death of husband of Bhura named Mohammad Rafi and her three minor children. It is further alleged that during the intervening night of 13/14.09.2021, petitioner and Bhura firstly assaulted deceased Mohammad Rafi with a sharp edged weapon and thereafter flamed the house to fire in which said Mohammad Rafi alongwith three minor children were sleeping. Mohammad Rafi and his children died of burn injuries and asphyxia.

Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that he is innocent and has committed no offence. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no legal evidence against him. Even no motive has been found against petitioner for commission of such a heinous offence. The fire that engulfed the house of Mohammad Rafi is stated to be accidental. It is also stated that the witnesses examined so far in the case have not supported the prosecution case.

On the other hand, the prayer has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General, on the ground that there is sufficient material on record to suggest the existence of prima facie case against petitioner. It has further been contended that keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of allegations, petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report.

Petitioner is accused of a very henious crime. The allegation is that he alongwith his co-accused Bhura have caused death of four human beings. Petitioner is stated to be cousin of deceased Mohammad Rafi.

Though, at the stage of deciding bail petition, detail scanning of prosecution evidence is unwarranted, still the material on record can always be looked into for the purposes of assessing gravity and seriousness of allegations.

In the instant case, it cannot be said that the prima facie case does not exist against petitioner. In addition to the allegations being serious against petitioner, the police has been able to collect evidence implicating petitioner and his co-accused. Learned Hence, there is no impediment to hold that there exist prima facie material against petitioner.

The seriousness and gravity of allegations coupled with existence of prima facie material against accused is sufficient to reject the prayer for bail, especially, in case which entail severest of punishment. The offence if proved against petitioner, may attract even capital punishment.

Prosecution evidence is at initial stage and material witnesses still remain to be examined. The possibility of petitioner to influence the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out, especially, keeping in view the social and economic background from which the complainant belongs.

The bail petition of co-accused of petitioner, namely, Bhura has already been rejected by this Court, vide order dated 30.12.2022, passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2654 of 2022. The case of the petitioner cannot be segregated from that of his co-accused as both of them face charge of criminal conspiracy.

In light of above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.