Krishan Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in FIR No.65 of 2019, dated 26.02.2019, registered under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that a statement of one Sh. Tek Singh (complainant) was recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Police Station Paonta Sahib to the effect that on 26.02.2019 at around 2:30 A.M., while he was going towards his home after his duty hours, one person allegedly joined him on the pretext that he was going in the same direction as the complainant. After walking for some distance, the said person, who was accompanying the complainant, who incidentally happens to be the petitioner, discovered some blood on the road, this raised suspicion in their mind. They walked further downside and found a vehicle bearing registration No.HR20-AE-4546 in an accidental condition, in which, a person was lying in an injured condition. The complainant called for an ambulance and after some time, when the ambulance reached at the spot and the medical personnel checked the injured person, he was found to be dead. This resulted in the lodging of the FIR i.e. FIR No.65 of 2019, dated 26.02.2019, under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. The dead body was taken into custody. One passbook in the name of Krishan Kumar was recovered from the vehicle. As per the prosecution, after the incidence, the petitioner made a call to Som Dutt and thereafter Som Dutt alongwith Yudhister, brother of the petitioner reached Poanta Sahib and identified that the dead body was not found to be of Krishan Kumar, that is the person, whose bank passbook was recovered from the accidental vehicle. Thus, the dead body could not be identified. After the conduct of the post mortem, a case was registered under Section 302 of the IPC on the basis of the opinion of the doctors. The petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2019 on the basis of CDR and mobile location and since then, he is in custody, now facing trial under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner besides being an innocent person and having been unnecessarily dragged in the case, otherwise is entitled for the grant of bail for the reason that it has been more than 5 years since the petitioner was arrested and as the pace at which the trial is being conducted does not suggests that the same is likely to be completed within some reasonable time, therefore, the petition be allowed by ordering the release of the petitioner on bail.

The petition is resisted by the State inter alia on the grounds that the crime committed by the accused is both grave and heinous. He hails from the State of Haryana and if released on bail, there is each and every possibility that he may jump the bail and, thus, frustrate the course of trial and as the petitioner is involved in the commission of a grave and heinous offence, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as the status report filed by the State.

On the previous date, this Court had also inspected the case record. The facts that led to the arrest of the petitioner stand mentioned by me hereinabove. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in custody of the police since 02.07.2019 i.e. for more than 5 years now. Though, of course, it cannot be disputed that the allegation against the petitioner is both grave and heinous, but, yet, it remains a fact that the petitioner has the right to be presumed innocent till held guilty in the course of a trial. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution has cited 48 witnesses i.e., 40 in the main challan, 8 in the supplementary challan and out of these, only 16 have been examined. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, 18 witnesses have been examined. The Court further stands informed that now the case has been listed before the learned trial Court on 11/12.11.2024 for examination of 2 witnesses on each day. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of the Court the zimini orders passed by the learned Sessions Court on the last date of hearing, dated 21.08.2024 and 22.08.2024. This, in fact, demonstrates that there is no possibility of the trial being completed within some reason time. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024, titled as Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 18.07.2024, has been pleased to hold that it is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial. An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial, which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. Applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail. If the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the consequences will ensue, but the very fact that he is in custody for the last 5 years and there is no end in sight as to how soon the trial is going to culminate, when admittedly out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined as of now, the denial of bail to the petitioner after being in custody for more than 5 years would amount to his incarceration, even without him having held guilty by the Court.

Accordingly, in view of the above observations, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.65 of 2019, dated 26.02.2019, registered under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., subject to his furnishing personal bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 Lac (Rupees Two Lac) with two sureties in the same amount, one of which should be a local surety, to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-

(a) He shall attend the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He will not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the leave of the Court."

It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of bail. The petition stands disposed in above terms.