Raman Khachi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest, for committing murder of a 52 years old man, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC,

seeking regular bail.

A perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner straightaway filed the bail petition before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a

three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can

directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Manoj Pathak, Ld. Counsel for the bail petitioner states on instructions that the

petitioner has no criminal past relating to the offences prescribing sentence of seven years and more, or when on conviction, the sentence imposed

was more than three years. 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, the Police officials registered the statement of complainant, Smt. Geeta Sharma,

under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She stated that they were constructing their house. In the neighbourhood situates the house of

one Rajesh Khachi. On 27.12.2020 at 3:00 p.m., when her son was going to the shop to bring windows, then Rajesh Khachi and his sons caught hold

of him and started beating him with sticks and rods etc. On noticing that they are beating their son, she alongwith her husband ran there and

intervened. Those persons even gave beatings to them. In between, Rajesh Khachi started beating her husband with some sharp edged weapon. On

receiving injuries, her husband became unconscious and he was taken to IGMC, Shimla, where he died. Based on these allegations, the Police

registered the FIR mentioned above.

Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel contends that it is a case of sudden fight and to support his contention, he referred to the postmortem report of

the deceased. 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:

The arguments of the learned counsel that it is a case of sudden fight, are insignificant till the investigation is complete. Moreso, given the fact that

in a broad day light, despite intervernion of a lady, the accused continued their beating spree.

Such being the conduct, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail.

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.

The petition is dismissed.