Nikhil Chandel vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail on the grounds that during the trial,

the material witnesses have not supported the case set up by the prosecution.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before this Court. However, vide order dated 16.10.2020, the same was dismissed

as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

In Para 8 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the

accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner, which led to the registration of the FIR, mentioned above, are that on 25th January, 2016, the Police

recorded statement of Nand Lal under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which led to registration of FIR mentioned above. The complainant alleged that his father

Abhi Ram and mother Ablu Devi were residing for the last 15-20 years, in the orchard, which was at a distance of one and half kilometers from the

village. In between, they would visit village or the family would go to the orchard. He further stated that on 24th January, 2016 i.e. yesterday, his

Massi Radha Devi had come to meet his parents and about 1.00 p.m. had gone to the house of his maternal uncle to meet their family. His mother has

also accompany her and returned in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. Next day, on 25.1.2016, during day time, his Massi again come and noticed that the

room was locked from outside and there was blood outside the verandah. On noticing the blood, she called him and upon that he reached Ro Jubbad.

He broke open the lock and noticed that inside the room, his parents were lying dead and articles of the house were scattered here and there. On

arrival of the police, they noticed that his father was hit on his head whereas, the neck of his mother was hit with some weapon. The postmortem

examination pointed out towards murder. The Police collected evidence from the spot and started investigation. The investigator obtained call details

of deceased Abhi Ram and started investigation from that angle. The call details revealed that on 24.1.2016, during day time a call was received by

him from mobile No. xxxxx-93380. On 24th January, 2016, when the investigator was on patrolling and erected a barricade, then they noticed one

vehicle bearing NO.HP01A-4763. Apart from the driver, three boys were sitting in the vehicle. On inquiry, those three boys were looking perplexed,

which arose suspicion in the mind of the investigator and he started investigation. During investigation they found that phone number of Nikhil Chandel

(A-2), the same from which the call was made to the deceased. Thus the police conducted investigation and police teams visited the homes of these

three persons. The investigation revealed their name as Rakshak Khachi (A-1), Nikhil Chandel (A-2) and Nitin Verma (A-3). It further revealed that

they were students of LR Institutes and were staying in a rented accommodation in Ochhghat. They were drug dependents and had knowledge that

the couple keep money with them and stay alone. They also came to know that the deceased was keeping charas with him and they decided to rob

the same. The Police also recorded their statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which led to recovery of weapon of offence. The

police seized the clothes of accused and blood on the pants of Nikhil Chandel, Shoes of Rakshak and Jecket of Nitin Verma matched completely with

the DNA obtained from the sweater of deceased Ablu Devi. Further the blood on the ‘Darat’ recovered pursuant to statement of the accused

under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, also matched with the blood of deceased Ablu Devi.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave

injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, Learned Deputy Advocate General contends that offence is heinous, accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail is likely to

send a wrong message to the society.

In this case the scientific evidence connects the accused with the commission of offence.

Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, has refrred to the statements of witnesses, most of whom have been examined. However, the documents which the

learned Counsel referred were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any

finding on a document in the Counsel's brief and not on Court's file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons

mentioned above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility.

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.

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.

The petition is dismissed.