Neeraj Kumar vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for committing murder, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular

bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the following bail petition:

(a) Cr.MP(M) No.214 of 2021, filed by the petitioner before this Court, was withdrawn by him on 29.01.2021 and he was given liberty to file a fresh.

In Para -8 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are as follows:

a) On 10th March, 2020, the Police station Baddi received a telephonic information from the Community Health Centre Nalagarh that some persons,

who have received injuries in some assaults, have come for treatment in this Hospital. A daily diary entry number 31 to this effect was recorded in the

police station. The doctor examined the injured Ashish Kumar and recorded a medico-legal certificate.

b) The Police started the investigation and, on 11th March, 2020 at 3:50 p.m., recorded the statement of Aman Gupta under section 154 CrPC. He

informed the Police that he worked as a supervisor nearby. On 10th March, 2020, i.e., yesterday, he was at his home due to the festival of Holi. He

and his room partners, namely Ashish, Roshan, Shesh Mani, and some other boys, were celebrating Holi. At around 1:30 p.m., few boys, names of

two of whom were Neeraj and Kapil, along with 6-7 more boys, reached there. All these boys were also tenants nearby. At that time, the informant

Aman Gupta and his friends were celebrating Holi on the roof of their house. These outsider boys reached on the roof and started hurling abuses at

them without any rhyme and reasons. When they tried to stop them from hurling abuses, then they started beating them and gave kicks and fists blows

to them. In the meanwhile, Kapil picked up an iron rod, which was lying on the roof. Kapil inflicted a blow on the head of Ashish with this Iron rod. All

other persons were giving beatings with fists and kicks. On these allegations, the informant sought criminal prosecution and action against the

assailants.

c) On 11th March, 2020, the Investigator recorded the statement of Javed Khan under 161 CrPC. The narration of the statement of Javed Khan

recorded under section 161 CRPC is that on 10th March 2020, along with his friends, namely Ashish, Aman Gupta, and some other friends, were

present on the roof of the house where they were celebrating Holi by dancing and singing. At around 1.30 p.m., 6-7 boys and Neeraj and Kapil came

there and asked them to stop dance and singing. After that, they started beating them with fists and kicks. In the meanwhile, Kapil (A-1) picked up a

rod, which was lying on the slab, and hit it on the scalp of Ashish. All of them gave beatings with fists, kicks to them. The Investigator also recorded

the statements under section 161 CrPC of Sheshmani Prajapati, Roshan Lal. All these versions were identical to that of Javed Khan.

d) The Investigator arrested Kapil. During interrogation, Kapil made a disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to point out

where he had kept the iron rod. Subsequently, Kapil led the Police party and the witnesses and got recovered an iron rod.

e) On 15th March 2020, injured Ashish was taken to a hospital in Mohali Punjab. On 20th March, 2020 he was shifted to a hospital at Zirakpur, and he

went to another hospital at Zirakpur. On 3rd April, 2020, he was referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,

PGIMER, Chandigarh, where on 3 April 2020, he succumbed to the injury.

f) In PGI , post mortem examination of the body of the deceased was conducted. The doctors noticed one injury on the scalp. According to the

doctors, the cause of death was post-traumatic hydrocephalus as a complication of traumatic brain injury, which was sufficient to cause death in an

ordinary course of nature.

g) Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a lockdown was imposed. The Police officials were deployed for enforcement of curfew and thus could not carry

out the investigation. This was bonafide, and none of the Police officials can be blamed for the delay, which was beyond their control. After the partial

lifting of the lockdown, the Investigator resumed the investigation, and on 10th August 2020, arrested the other accused persons A-2 to A-7.

h) Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the injured had died after a considerable time and, as such, death could not be linked with the injury

allegedly caused by main accused Kapil and not by the petitioner, Neeraj Kumar.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused. Another

argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to

society.

This Court had granted bail to the co-accused on the following reasons:-

“8. In the statement of Amit Kumar recorded under Section 154 of CrPC, on 11th March 2020, which led to the registration of FIR, only Kapil (A-

1) and Neeraj (A-2) were named, and none of the other accused A-3 to A-7 were named. On the same day, in the statements of Javed Khan, Shesh

Mani Prajapati, and Roshan Lal, none of them named any other accused except Kapil (A-1) and Neeraj (A-2). On 10th August, 2020, Amit and Javed

visited the Police station and informed the Investigator that they have come to know about the names of the boys who had accompanied Kapil(A-1)

and Neeraj (A-2). After that, the Investigator recorded their supplementary statements under section 161 CrPC and arrested the accused Pradeep

(A-3), Pawan Kumar (A-4), Mithun alias Mithu (A-5), Kashmir (A-6), and Gurmail Singh alias Raju (A-7). In the statements recorded under section

154 CrPC and 161 CrPC, the witnesses did not name the accused A-3 to A-7. After the partial lifting of the lockdown, they were arrested on 10th

August, 2020. However, the accused were not subjected to the Test Identification parade for the reasons best known to the Investigator, SHO, and

the Supervisory Officer.

Furthermore, in the statement of Amit recorded under section 154 CrPC, he had explicitly stated that the boys who had accompanied Kapil (A-1)

and Neeraj (A-2) were also residing nearby as tenants. Thus, the best evidence to substantiate this was the investigation from the neighbourhood and

to verify the houses where A-3 to A-7 were residing as tenants and after that verification from the Landlords and other neighbours, etc. A perusal of

the Police reports filed under section 173(2) CrPC does not mention any such investigation or corroborating documents. Why it was not done would be

known only to the Investigator, SHO, and the Supervisory Officers. Thus, an analysis of the role of the accused and the evidence collected so far

would make out a special case for grant of bail.â€​

A reference to the status report reveals that the Officer-in-charge of the Police station has already forwarded the police report under section 173

(2) CrPC to the concerned Court. Had the accused not received the documents in compliance with S. 207 CrPC, this Court would have certainly

asked the respondent to produce the same. However, the petitioner does not claim the non-receipt of the challan. The accused receives copies of the

Police report and the copies of the statements of witnesses free of cost.

The petitioner stood named in FIR. The allegations in the case are serious and offence is heinous. To decide the bail petition on merits, this Court

would require perusing the evidence collected by the prosecution. The petitioner has neither annexed the copy of the police report filed under Section

173(2) CrPC nor does he say that the Trial Court did not supply the same to him under S. 207 CrPC. Even there is no ground pleaded or explanation

offered that constrained the petitioner from filing it with the petition. Thus, the Court cannot decide the bail petition.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a new

petition on the same cause of action or different grounds by annexing a copy of the police report, etc.