Ram Padarth Paswan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 48 of 2020, dated 14.7.2020, registered in Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 302, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

Status Report stands filed. Record was also made available.

Prosecution case is that during night intervening 13 and 14th July, 2020, Deep Narayan Paswan, Ram Padarth Paswan and Raghunath were in their residential room and Deep Narayan Paswan and Raghunath were consuming liquor. At that time they quarreled with each other on account of some transaction of money, whereupon Deep Narayan Paswan picked a brick lying in the room and hit with it on head of Raghunth causing Raghunath to become unconscious outside the door of the room. Thereafter, Deep Narayan Paswan picked an iron Axe and hit the chest of Raghunath with back side of that Axe. Pieces of brick were thrown by Ram Padarth Paswan on the back side of room in grass field and thereafter Deep Narayan Paswan took the dead body of Raghunath in the bushes in the Nalah, and with intention to dispose it of, put it on fire after pouring diesel thereon. Ram Padarth Paswan helped to drag the body for some distance and helped Deep Narayan Paswan in destroying the evidence. Ram Padarth Paswan is brother-in-law of Deep Narayan Paswan. As per prosecution he helped Deep Narayan Paswan to commit murder of Raghunath and destroying the proof.

FIR in present case was registered on the basis of statement of Hukam Chand, Up Pradhan of Gram Panchyat Plania, who reached on the spot on receiving a telephonic call from a villager Ganesh on 14.7.2020 at about 9/9-15 A.M and found a partially burnt dead body of some person and on inquiry he gathered information that rooms near that place wherein labour of contractor Sanjay Garg was residing, were locked and there were blood stains on the field and leaves of plants with signs of dragging the dead body. He was informed by Sanjay Garg contractor that Ram Padarth Paswan, Deep Narayan and Raghunath, residents of Bihar, were residing in those rooms and they quarreled during previous night and dead body was of Raghunath whereas Deep Narayan Paswan and Ram Padarth Paswan were missing.

On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR was lodged and investigation was carried and after presentation of challan trial is going on in the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the prosecution story is taken to be true as it is, for arguments sake only, then also it is apparent from the prosecution case that petitioner Ram Padarth Paswan was neither having any intention to kill Raghunath Sada nor he participated in killing him but he was killed by Deep Narayan Paswan by hitting his head with brick, during quarrel between deceased and Deep Narayan Paswan and it was Deep Narayan Paswan only who hit the deceased with brick as well as back side of iron Axe. Further that, petitioner was neither party with them in taking liquor nor in beating or hitting deceased Raghunath. Further that so far as dragging of dead body is concerned, as per prosecution case, the main accused Deep Narayan Paswan had done so and the role of the petitioner in the entire case, as claimed in the prosecution case, is that he threw the pieces of brick in grass field and helped Deep Narayan Paswan in dragging the dead body for some distance and such accusation, at the most, may cause conviction of petitioner, but only under Section 201 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC, even if provisions of Section 34 IPC is attracted in present case, as there was no common intention of the petitioner and main accused Deep Narayan Paswan to kill Raghunath Sada as Ram Padarth Paswan was a mere spectator of the commission of entire offence and when Raghunath Sada had expired, petitioner threw the brick, thereafter, in grass field and helped Deep Narayan Paswan in dragging the dead body, which would not attract punishment under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, it has been canvassed that petitioner, who is behind the bars since July, 2020 deserves to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that for commission of heinous crime and helping co-accused in commission thereof, petitioner is not entitled for bail, therefore, bail application deserves to be dismissed. Further that petitioner is resident of Bihar, a distant place and, therefore, in case he is enlarged on bail, it would be difficult to ensure his presence during the trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two other co-accused Sikender and Jitender who were arrested for harboring the petitioner and Deep Narayan Paswan were also resident of another State, but they have been enlarged on bail on 2.9.2020 and they are available during trial. He has further submitted that in case of granting bail petitioner is ready to furnish local surety to the satisfaction of the Court and abide by the any condition imposed by the Court.

It has been further submitted on behalf of petitioner that there was no injury on the body of deceased except two injuries caused by main accused Deep Narayan Paswan and those injuries were caused by Deep Narayan Paswan instantaneously without any meeting of mind or conspiracy with the petitioner and petitioner was a mere spectator of the quarrel taken place between Deep Narayan Paswan and deceased Raghunath and thus petitioner cannot be considered to have any connivance or conspiracy with Deep Narayan Paswan to kill Raghunath and the conduct of petitioner Ram Padarth Paswan after death of Raghunath cannot be considered an act of commission of an offence of causing injury with intention to kill Raghunath. Further that, conduct of petitioner Ram Padarth Paswan, out of fear, which was but natural, can only be construed as an offence under Section 201 IPC, for which petitioner cannot be treated at par with main accused Deep Narayan Paswan and, therefore, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Petitioner had approached Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan in the year 2020 and his bail application was dismissed on 28.10.2020. Thereafter petitioner approached this Court by filing Cr.M.P. (M) No. 232 of 2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.4.2021 before co-ordinate Bench. Another bail application Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1599 of 2021 was dismissed on merits by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.8.2021, on the ground that at that stage it was not possible to assume that at the time of burning the corpus of Raghunath by petitioner and Deep Narayan Paswan, Raghunath was alive or had already died.

It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that as per post mortem report, cause of death is head injury and excessive bleeding, but not the burns and dead body was 100% post mortem burns, therefore, it is evident that at the time of putting the dead body on fire, Ragunath was dead and further that there was no other injury which suggests that deceased was not beaten before his death, but he died because of unfortunate hit injury caused by Deep Narayan Paswan, but not by present petitioner.

Without commenting upon merits of the case, but taking into consideration material placed before me and taking note of factors and parameters required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail as propounded by the Courts including the Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount each, one of them shall be local, as undertaken and another shall be relative of the petiotner, to the satisfaction of trial Court and upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to assure presence of the petitioner at the time of trial:-

(i) That the petitioner shall join the investigation and attend the Court as and when directed to do so by the Investigating Agency/Court;

(ii) that the petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that the petitioner shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for their availability to Police and/or during trial;

(viii) the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner, enlarged on bail, as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his 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.

Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, if need be, passing order can be verified from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.