Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who is under incarceration since 24th July, 2018, having been arrested for allegedly committing murder, has come up before this

Court, seeking regular bail.

Based on the complaint of the injured, who later on died, the police arrested the petitioner on 24th July, 2018, in FIR No.120 of 2018, dated

19.07.2018, registered under Sections 302, 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) in Police Station, Shahpur, District

Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. However, vide

order dated 25.6.2020, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, dismissed the petition, primarily because the offence was heinous.

I have read the status report(s) and heard counsel for the parties.

The gist of the prosecution’s case is that on the unfortunate date i.e. 18.7.2018, at about 8.30-9.00 p.m., deceased Butta Ram, while returning

home from work with Raju was wrongfully restrained by accused Rajesh Kumar. Accused Rajesh Kumar was drunk. When Butta Ram objected, the

accused abused him and gave a fist blow on the right eye and thereafter beaten with the help of iron rod. He begged the accused to leave but he did

not show any mercy. Thereafter, Rajesh Kumar dragged him to the nearby newly constructed building and thrown him there. After that, he went

unconscious and remained there over-night. On next date, i.e. 19.7.2018, around 8.30 a.m., after regaining conscious, he crawled out of that building

and informed the police. On the basis of his statement, FIR No.120/18, dated 19.7.2018, was registered. Butta Ram was medically examined at Civil

Hospital and was referred to RPG Medical College, Tanda, where during treatment, he has succumbed to the injuries.

Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are contradictions in recovery memo and also that the incident had taken

place in an area where people were residing. If such incident, as alleged, has taken place, the residents would have heard hue and cry. Learned

counsel further submits that because of this, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

On the contrary, Ms. Divya Sood, Learned Deputy Advocate General, submitted that the FIR was registered on the complaint of the injured, who

later on succumbed to the injuries and the FIR was converted into Section 302 IPC. She further contended that the complaint made by the deceased

to the police would fall in the category of dying declaration.

Prima facie, there is no material available to disbelieve the allegations made by the injured while lodging FIR. Thus, the contradictions and other

discrepancies would be the matter of appreciation at the time of final verdict and in subsequent stages.

Given above, there is no merit in this bail petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

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.

Petition dismissed.