Kulwant Singh vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner aged 45 years, who is in custody w.e.f 18.9.2020, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 26.11.2020,

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, HP, dismissed the petition because the accused is a habitual offender.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history. However, the status report reveals that a large number of case are pending against him.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 18.9.2020 police received a telephonic information that in village Baggi one person has

entered into the house of Surat Ram. The caller also informed that local persons have caught the said person and requested to send the police. On this,

the police reached at the spot, where the daughter of Surat Ram apprised the police. The investigator recorded her statement under Section 154,

Cr.PC, who stated that she is married in the same village. For the last so many days, an unknown person would remove the grills of the windows and

would snoop inside the rooms. Earlier, this person had cut salwar of her younger sister. On 6th/7th September, 2020 again he removed grills of the

window of the house of another co-villager and tried to enter inside the house, but taking advantage of the darkness, at that time, he ran away.

Because of such conduct of an unknown person, the villagers were alert to nab him. Some villagers had also seen the said person on the motor bike

but could not read the number of the bike. She further stated that on yesterday, her sister had also come to her maternal home but because of the said

incident, she was staying in her maternal home for the last few days. On the intervening night of 17/18.9.2020 at about 1.15 a.m (mid night), she heard

commotion from the side room. However, she thought that it might be some cat. Later on, when she was sleeping, she realized that someone was

trying to remove her salwar, on which she immediately woke up but that person had hidden himself under the bed. She realized that someone was in

the room and then called upon her sister and father. Taking advantage of the darkness, that person by crawling on the floor entered into the another

room and went out from the same window, the grills of which have been bent by him. Subsequently, she raised cries on which some villagers, who

were already alert, came there and nabbed the said person. On inquiry, he revealed his name as Kulwant Singh. He had cut the salwar of the victim

with blade and left the said blade under the bed. Based on these allegations, the police took the custody of the accused and after completing

procedural formalities, arrested him. The police also recovered one motorcycle parked at some distance. Later on, during the investigation, the

younger daughter of Surat Ram, who was a minor aged 14 years, also told the police about similar activities having taken place with her.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner. Another argument on behalf of the

State is that the accused is a proven habitual offender. Given his past conduct, the accused is likely to repeat the offense, the crime is heinous, the

accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

REASONING:

The petitioner is a history sheeter. One case of attempt to rape is pending against him and another case under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506, IPC

is also pending against him. As such, he is not entitled to bail.

In Sunny Kapoor v State of HP, CrMPM 2168 of 2020, (Para 9), this Court after considering the relevant judicial precedents observed that the pre-

trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the offense's heinous nature, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a crime,

probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, criminal history of the accused, and doing away with the victim(s) and

witnesses. While considering bail, the Court has to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused,

society, and the State. The primary purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused to attend the trial.

The nature of past history reveals that the involvement of accused in various cases including theft, drugs, assault, etc.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

Given above, the petition is dismissed.