Puran Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 99 of 2011 dated 14.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, under Sections 341, 302, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149, 364, 427 and 201 IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. It has been stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by Ravi Kumar complainant in the case. The prosecution case is that deceased Parvash Kumar (sic Hunny) and complainant Ravi Kumar had gone towards Manali on 14.7.2011 in vehicle No. HR- 12-R-5533. They stopped near Jhiri rafting point. One person started dancing in front of the vehicle alongwith his friends. He gave beatings to the complainant, deceased and other occupants. The deceased took the vehicle towards Kullu, accused and his friends followed him in a van bearing registration No. HP-33-T-9658 and deceased was brought towards rafting point Jhiri. One of the accused attacked deceased with sword. The deceased ran towards river and died subsequently due to injuries sustained by him due to excessive blood loss leading to shock and death. The accused were arrested.

The petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi which was rejected on 16.1.2012. It has been submitted that the petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. There is no legal evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erred in dismissing the bail application. It has been submitted that investigation in the case is complete and no purpose will be served for detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been submitted that there are in all seven accused including the petitioner. Accused Dinesh Kumar is juvenile and he has been released on bail, all other accused are in custody. The trial has commenced. The prosecution has already examined 12 PWs and now next date of hearing is fixed on 4.4.2012 and 7.4.2012 for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It has been submitted that Ravi, Sujit and Parvesh prosecution witnesses have named the petitioner alongwith others for commission of offence. The accused have committed serious offence. The statements of Ravi, Sujit and Parvesh have not yet been recorded in the trial. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

I have considered the rival contentions. The prosecution case is that all seven accused constituted unlawful assembly and thereafter in order to achieve their common object committed murder of Hunny on 14/15.7.2011. The petitioner has been named by Ravi, Sujit and Parvesh. The trial has commenced. The prosecution has already examined 12 witnesses. The statements of 12 PWs are not on record. In these circumstances, it is not possible to observe even for the purpose of bail what type of evidence has been led by the prosecution.

The statements of Ravi, Sujit and Parvesh are yet to be recorded. It has been emphasized by the learned Additional Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General that as per the prosecution case the petitioner is very much involved in the commission of offence. The next date of hearing in the trial Court is fixed for evidence on 4.4.2012 and 7.4.2012. There are in all 24 witnesses in the case to be examined on behalf of the respondent in the trial, out of them, 12 have already been examined. Thus, the statements of half of the witnesses have already been recorded. No case is made out for releasing the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.