Lalit Dagar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of IPC, vide FIR no. 223 of 2020, dated 15.9.2020, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was aged 25 years at the time of the incident. He is a law-abiding citizen and would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.

The petition was opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant Harish Kumar disclosed that he is a driver of a Taxi bearing No. HP-01A -9543. He was taking four passengers from Shimla to Chintpurni. He was attacked by those passengers with a knife. They also stole his taxi. The informant was taken to the hospital. Davinder Singh made the statement that he was the driver of the truck bearing registration No. HP-63-3431. He saw an Alto Car on the roadside. He was stopped by one person who boarded the truck and asked for help. He became unconscious subsequently. His name was found to be Harish Kumar, who was attacked by the occupants. The Police conducted the investigation. Harish Kumar succumbed to his injuries subsequently. The Police found during the investigation that the accused/petitioner Yuv Raj and Rohit Singh had conspired together to hire a vehicle from Shimla to Chintpurni and thereafter to snatch it on the way. They hired the vehicle of Harish Kumar to Chintpurni. Yuv Raj asked the driver to stop the vehicle as he was feeling nauseous. Sahil put the chilly power in the eyes of Harish Kumar. Lalit attacked Harish with a knife. A truck reached the spot in the meantime. The petitioner and other persons ran away from the spot. The report of analysis has been received and as per the report, the blood sample of deceased Harish Kumar matched the blood sample taken from the spot. Blood was found on the jacket and pants of Sahil and the pants of petitioner Lalit. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the deceased died due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of hypovolemic shock caused by the injuries to vital organs. Challan was presented before the Court and is now listed for recording the evidence on 21.11.2023. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

I have heard Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence at this stage. The petitioner has been in custody for more than three years. The trial is not progressing and the petitioner is entitled to bail due to the violation of his right to speedy trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court on 10.12.2020 and is progressing without any hindrance. The petitioner will not appear in case he is released on bail. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under:-

The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)”

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’

The report of the DNA analysis clearly shows that the DNA taken from the blood sample of Harish Kumar matched the blood found in the pants of the petitioner. No explanation has been provided by the petitioner for the presence of the blood on his pants. This prima facie corroborates the prosecution version that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the crime. Thus, there is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime.

It was submitted that there is a delay in the trial which would disentitle the petitioner to bail. However, it was not even mentioned that the delay was attributable to the prosecution. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the regular working of the Court was brought to a stand-still due to the COVID-19 Pandemic which was a circumstance beyond the control of any person. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to extend the limitation specified in various Acts due to the onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Hence, the period of the COVID-19 pandemic has to be excluded while calculating the delay. There is nothing to establish that the prosecution had not proceeded with the trial and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail on the ground of delay.

Learned Trial Court noticed that the material witnesses are yet to be examined; therefore, releasing the petitioner, at this stage, on bail will be prejudicial to the progress of the trial.

Keeping in view all these considerations, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.