Rajat Deep vs Birender Chauhan

Sandeep Sharma, J

Bail petitioner namely Rajat Deep who is behind bars since 11.4.2022, has approached this court in the instant proceedings, for grant of bail in case FIR No. 33, dated 8.4.2022, registered at Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 324, 382 and 307 IPC. Pursuant to order dated 29.4.2022, respondent State has filed status report and ASI Ravinder Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

Close scrutiny of record reveals that on 8.4.2022, police after having received telephonic information reached PHC Tiara and recorded statement of complainant Rahul Kumar under S. 154 CrPC, who alleged therein that five months back he had given Rs. 40,000/- to the bail petitioner Rajat Deep on his request. In March, 2022, Rajat Deep returned Rs. 13,000/-and when on 8.4.2022, he asked Rajat Deep to return the money, he told that he has to take money from some person, who resides near Kathla Mata Mandir. Complainant alleged that he met him at Chaitlu and from there went to Kathla Mata Mandir on motor cycle bearing registration No. HP-39E-2676. Before reaching Kathla Mata Mandir, Rajat Deep stopped the motor cycle and started waiting for the person, from whom he had to take the money but since after lapse of considerable time, none came/reached the spot, complainant told Rajat Deep he has to return home but the bail petitioner uttered the words, “I am Sorry” to the complainant and slit the throat of the complainant with sharp edged weapon, as a consequence of which blood started oozing out from the throat of the complainant. After the alleged incident, the bail petitioner fled from the spot and also took away motor cycle of the complainant. Complainant alleged that bail petitioner attacked him with an intention to kill him ad as such, appropriate action be taken against him.

Since the investigation is almost complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, he has approached this court for grant of regular bail.

While fairly admitting the factum with regard to completion of investigation, learned Additional Advocate General contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. While making this court peruse evidence collected by Investigating Agency Mr. Guliera, further submits that there is overwhelming evidence available on record that the bail petitioner borrowed Rs.40,000/- from complainant and when the complainant asked the bail petitioner to return the same, he (bail petitioner) slit his throat with an intention to kill him as such the bail petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that the investigation is complete, save and except RFSL report, which is yet to be received from RFSL Dharamshala. As per case of prosecution, bail petitioner firstly called complainant near Kathla Mata Temple and thereafter attacked him with sharp edged weapon as a consequence of which he suffered serious injury. As per medical evidence, the complainant suffered simple injuries but since the bail petitioner had attacked the complainant on his throat with surgical blade, it could be dangerous to the life of the complainant. Since at the time of alleged incidence, there was none present apart from complainant and the bail petitioner, it would be too premature to conclude complicity/guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner. Till the time, guilt of the bail petitioner is proved in accordance with law, it would not be in the interests of justice to curtail freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Otherwise also, injures suffered by the complainant are simple in nature. Whether the bail petitioner attacked the complainant with surgical blade, with an intention to kill him, is to be determined by learned court below in the totality of evidence led on record by investigating agency. Since the complainant stands discharged from hospital and there is no danger to his life, this court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial.

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

A downloaded copy of this order shall suffice for the learned trial Court to accept the bail bonds/surety from the bail petitioner and in case the learned Court below intends to verify the authenticity of the order placed before it on behalf of the bail petitioner, it can do so by verifying the same from the official website of this Court.