Rajesh Khachi 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.PC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed bail petition before this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No.246 of 2021. However, vide order dated

2.2.2021, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 are that on 27.12.2020 Smt. Geeta Sharma informed the police about the incident in question. After

that, the investigator recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.PC. She told the police that her husband had started further construction in the

structure with five slabs, which was already existed. She alongwith her family lived on the top floor. During those days, they had started doing the the

left out work in the lower floor. Adjacent to their house is the house of the petitioner Rajesh Khachi and they shared a common wall.

She further stated that on that very day, i.e., 27.12.2020, they had employed a mason and around 3.00 p.m., her son went to market to bring

windows. When he was on his way to market, Rajesh Khachi (A-1) and his both sons (A-2 and A-3) caught hold of her son and started beating him

with sticks and rods. When she alongwith her husband noticed that the accused are beating their son, then they ran to rescue him. On reaching there,

the accused persons also gave beatings to them. In between A-1 Rajesh Khachi, petitioner herein, gave a hit to her husband with some sharp edged

weapon. On receiving such injury, her husband became unconscious and even she also became unconscious. They were brought to Civil Hospital,

Theog from where her husband was referred to IGMC, where he died. Based on these allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was a case of sudden fight without pre-motivation and the nature of

weapons used also point out lack of preparation. He further argued without admitting and conceding at this stage that fight, if any, was started by the

victims and it is evident from the fact that it took place in the premises of the accused persons. He further submits that the petitioner is in jail for more

than four months, coupled with the fact that he is a Principal, as such, he is not a risk to the society and he be given bail. He further contends that the

incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

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.

REASONING:

In this case, the son and wife of the deceased are not only eye witnesses but are injured eye witnesses. The version of the wife of the deceased

that when her son was going to purchse windows, then he was caught hold by the accused and given beatings cannot be brushed aside in the absence

of cross-examination. Even if this case does not amount to murder and just falls in the definition of culpable homicide, still the same is not a case of

bail at this stage.

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. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the

accused.

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.