Rajesh Singh And Another vs State Of H.P

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioners have preferred this petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 67 of 2020, dated 18.6.2020,

registered in Police Station Rohru, District Shimla under Sections 188, 269, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 174 and 427 IPC read with Section

25 of Arms Arm.

Status reports, on various dates, have been filed stating therein the further progress of investigation in the case. Petitioners, vide order dated

22.6.2020, in the event of arrest, were directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety each

in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to further conditions including joining of investigation as and when directed to do so.

It is the case of prosecution that during intervening night of 17 th and 18th June, 2020, petitioners along with other four accused had beaten

complainant Lucky Chauhan and, thereafter, when police officials were taking the complainant to Police Station in a private vehicle owned by one

police official Pardeep Kumar, petitioners along with co-accused had again attacked the police party and had smashed the window panes of car of

police official and had beaten police officials as well as Home guard personnel accompanying complainant Lucky Chauhan, wherefrom, Lucky

Chauhan had skipped and had hidden himself, out of fear, in his rented room and after noticing the police on spot, had again returned to spot.

Except petitioners, other four accused were arrested by police and they were enlarged on bail by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 1st July, 2020.

It is further stated in status report that at the time of attacking the police party, Rajesh Singh petitioner and co-accused Aman Bhauta were carrying

darat in their hands and co-accused/petitioner Lokender Singh was having iron rod in his hand and during investigation, one darat has been recovered

at the instance of co-accused Aman Bhauta, whereas petitioners Rajesh and Lokender are not disclosing about darat as well as rod used by them for

commission of offence and recovery thereof is yet to be effected from them.

During pendency of present petition, an application bearing Cr.MP No. 889 of 2020 was filed on behalf of petitioners seeking therein the direction

from Court to protect them from third degree torture stating therein that during night of 4th July, 2020 petitioners were thrashed with sticks and

subjected to third degree torture and petitioner Rajesh Singh was thrashed with leather belt during that night and for his worse condition, he was crying

with pain and was taken to Civil Hospital, Rohru where first aid was provided to him. Whereupon, this Court had directed Superintendent of Police,

Shimla to look into the matter personally and submit report after inquiry.

On 8th July, 2020, it was informed in writing by Superintendent of Police that inquiry has been conducted and concluded through SDPO Rohru and

copy of report dated 8th July, 2020 was also placed on record along with statements of doctor, petitioners Rajesh Singh and Lokender and other police

officials.

It has been concluded in inquiry that had the petitioners been subjected to third degree torture by police as alleged, they would have definitely got

themselves medically examined and would have complained in this regard and further that petitioners were claiming that on 4.7.2020 they went to Civil

Hospital, Rohru for getting medical examination for alleged beatings by police, but, they did not get themselves medically examined and therefore,

version of the petitioners could not be substantiated during inquiry.

Petitioners have placed on record the copy of prescription slip of Rajesh Singh, his photographs and also print of screen shot of E-mail sent by them

to Superintendent of Police as well as DGP Himachal Pradesh. Police has also placed on record copies of daily diary reports No. 12 and 13 dated 4th

July, 2020 of Police Chowki City Rohru.

In daily diary report No. 12, it has been recorded that at 8.30 PM, Medical Officer from Civil Hospital, Rohru had informed that two persons had

come to hospital for treatment alleging that police personnels had beaten them, whereupon HHC Anil Kumar, after recording information in daily

diary, had left Police Chowki to hospital along with HHC Avar Singh. HHC Anil Kumar at 9.40 PM had returned and entered in the daily diary report

No. 13, stating therein that when he reached in hospital, Medical Officer had informed him that those persons were asked to wait in emergency room,

telling them that he would inform the police and when he (Doctor) after sometime visited the emergency room those two persons were not found

present there and about them, he had also enquired from security staff and had tried to search them, but, they were not found there. Thereafter, HHC

Anil Kumar, after directing the Medical Officer to inform the police as and when those persons would come to hospital, had returned to Police

Chowki.

In the prescription slip, produced by petitioners, nothing has been mentioned by Medical Officer with respect to beatings given by police. It has

come in inquiry report of SDPO that one Medical Officer was on duty upto 9.30 PM and thereafter, he was replaced by another Medical Officer

w.e.f. 9.30 PM to 9.30 AM next day. The prescription slip produced on record is claimed to have been scribed by second Medical Officer, who was

on duty from 9.30 PM to 9.30 AM. Though photographs and screen shot of E-mail have been placed on record, however, in prescription slip nothing

has been mentioned about the cause of pain and headache being complained and suffered by petitioner Rajesh Singh. It has also come in statement of

Doctor, who has examined petitioner Rajesh Singh, on 4.7.2020 that neither it was complained nor noticed by him that there were injuries on back of

petitioner Rajesh Singh whereas it is claimed in Cr.MP No. 889 of 2020 that petitioner Rajesh Singh was thrashed with leather belt during night of 4th

July, 2020. This plea also is not substantiated from the material on record.

Even if the story of petitioners is accepted to be true, then at 8.30 PM, when daily diary No. 12 was recorded, petitioners were in hospital but

thereafter, they were not found there, however, as per prescription slip, placed on record, petitioner Rajesh again attended the hospital during night of

4th July, 2020. It has also come in statements of petitioners recorded by SDPO that they had also contacted their Advocate at Shimla, who has

advised them to submit a written complaint to Superintendent of Police as well as DGP and to have the medical record. However, it is claimed by

learned counsel for petitioners that they were never contacted by petitioners on 4th July, 2020 and totally false statements of petitioners have been

recorded by SDPO.

Be that as it may, fact remains that only petitioner Rajesh got him medically examined, but, petitioner Lokender did not despite the fact that it had

been alleged in Cr.MP No. 889 of 2020 that both petitioners were beaten. In case, he was beaten, why did he not get medically examined and if not

beaten then why he was spared by police, it is again a mystery. In any case, it creates doubt about version of petitioners.

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt that petitioners were really subjected to third degree torture in the

night of 4th July, 2020 by police in Police Station Rohru.

It is evident from status report that petitioners are joining the investigation since 23rd June, 2020 and it is claimed by Investigating Officer/Sub

Inspector Ram Saroop, present in person, that recovery of darat as well as rod is yet to be effected from petitioners and therefore, their anticipatory

bail is liable to be rejected. It is also submitted by Investigating Officer that except recovery, investigation is almost complete.

Enlargement of petitioners on bail would not dis-entitle the police/Investigating Officer from continuing the investigation and interrogate the

petitioners and others for elucidating facts including recovery of weapon of offence allegedly used by petitioners for commission of offence. The bail

is always granted to accused subject to his cooperation to be extended by him for further investigation, if any, by Investigating Officer. It is submitted

by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners are always ready to join and cooperate the investigation and further that they are ready to abide by

any condition to be imposed by Court during their enlargement on bail.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, with aforesaid observations with respect to right of Investigating Agency to further

investigate the matter, I find that no fruitful purpose is going to serve by keeping the petitioners behind the bars at this stage and therefore, ad-interim

bail granted to them is confirmed subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the concerned Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over Police Station Rohru, within one week from today, subject to the following

conditions:-

(i). That the petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation as well as the trial Court on each and every date as and when required;

(ii). That the petitioners 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 Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. They shall not, in any manner, try to

overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(ii). That they shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial;

(iii). That they shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in

advance, to P.S. Rohru.

(v). That the petitioners shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which they are accused or suspected or the commission of which he is

suspected.

(vi) . That petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any manner.

17 It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioners as deemed necessary in the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioners as

it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

18 In case the petitioners violate any condition imposed upon them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may

approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

19 Petition stands disposed of. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the

disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Dasti copy on usual terms.