Pankaj Kumar vs State of HP

Surinder Singh, J.—The petitioner herein was arrested u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 5 of 2009 registered in GRPS, Kangra. He failed to get the bail from the Court of Sessions, as such, moved the instant application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his enlargement on bail.

In nutshell the prosecution case against him is that Ranjit Singh (deceased) was an employee of the complainant Ashok Kumar, a meat-seller. On 14th August, 2009 the deceased did not attend his work at the shop because of "Janam Ashtami" festival, as such he reported for duty to his employer at 5.00 PM and returned around 6.00 PM. On 15th August, 2009 his dead body was found lying near Railway Station, "Baijnath temple". The FIR was registered and the police started investigation of the case. During the investigation it came to light that the petitioner Pankaj Kumar, Lavlesh (juvenile), deceased Ranjit and Sanjay were friends. The petitioner had bought a motorcycle and the deceased used to make a demand to the petitioner to lend him for his use to which he denied. This nourished grudge between both of them.

On 14th August, 2009 at 7.30 PM, the petitioner, the deceased and their friends including Sanjay Kumar consumed liquor as well as beer. The deceased passed sarcastic remarks against the petitioner, which was a cause for picking up an altercation. Thereafter petitioner handed over his bag to the Juvenile Offender and directed him to reach the Railway Station, Baijnath as they would see the deceased. Petitioner alongwith Sanjay Kumar reached the Railway Station on his motorbike. They met deceased. All of them sat nearby Baijnath Railway Station, where they smoke few cigars. Again some wordly exchange took place between the petitioner and deceased. Khukhari of the petitioner was placed on the bag itself. It was picked up by Lavlesh (juvenile) and dealt its blows on the neck and stomach of the deceased and ran away. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. Police recorded the statements of Nishat Singh who alighted from the motorbike on half way and Sanjay Kumar. Out of them, Sanjay Kumar was stated to be the eye witness of the alleged incident. His statement was also recorded u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police arrested the petitioner and his co-accused Lavlesh. Lavlesh was granted bail, but it was denied to the petitioner.

The only allegation against the petitioner is that he had supplied the weapon of offence to the Juvenile Offender Lavlesh, who had actually committed the crime.

I have gone through the statement of Sanjay Kumar, thoroughly, which needs not to be commented upon in any manner as it may prejudice the case of any of the parties. But, however, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has a case for bail. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and this bail is subject to the following conditions that the petitioner:

(a) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall cooperative with the investigation of this case to take it to its logical end;

(b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and

(c) shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior permission of this Court as long as the case remain under investigation with the police.

Any observation made hereinabove is strictly for the disposal of this bail petition and shall not affect the merits of the case in any way.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala by registered post forthwith for his information and compliance.