Raman Khachi vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

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

has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the following bail petition before this Court:

(a) Cr.MP(M) No.186 of 2021, decided on 4.2.2021.

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.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner 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:

A reference to Para 9 of the bail petition as well as to the status report reveals that the accused has already received the copy of the police report

under section 173(2) CrPC to the concerned Court. Had the accused not received the documents in compliance with S. 207 CrPC, this Court would

have certainly asked the respondent to produce the same.

The allegations in the case are serious and offence heinous. To decide the bail petition on merits would require this Court to peruse the evidence

collected by the prosecution. The petitioner neither annexed the copy of the police report filed under Section 173(2) CrPC nor does he say that the

Trial Court did not supply the same to him under S. 207 CrPC. Even there is no ground pleaded or explanation offered that constrained the petitioner

from filing it with the petition. Thus, the Court cannot decide the bail petition.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a new

petition on the same cause of action or different grounds by annexing a copy of the police report, etc.