Raman Khachi vs State Of H.P

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 of

CrPC, seeking bail.

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

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

(b) Cr.MP(M) No.1142 of 2021, decided on 1.7.2021.

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:

The Police has filed report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC. Apart from other witnesses, in the list of witnesses Geeta Sharma, wife of the deceased

and Shashank Sharma, son of the deceased have been cited as prosecution witnesses. A brief reference to the facts of the case reveals that both of

them were eye witnesses to the occurrence. I have also gone through the statement of Geeta Sharma as well as Shashank Sharma under Section 161

Cr.PC. The allegations are that although Rajesh Khachi had given wound with incised weapon on the chest, but in the police report other two accused

namely Raman Khachi (petitioner herein) and his father Rajesh Khachi have been arraigned with the aid of Section 34, 324 and 325 IPC.

Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel had argued that the evidence qua recovery of weapon which was used by Rohan Khachi and concealed by

Raman Khachi would not implicate him, is not relevant to decide this bail petition. The allegations are that father and two sons in furtherance of

common intention firstly gave beatings to Shashank and when his parents intervened then they also gave beatings to his parents and Rajesh Khachi

inflicted a wound on the chest of Shyam Sharma who eventually died. Thus, it is the appreciation of evidence that whether the fatal blow was an

individual act of Raman Khachi or common intention, can only be a decide point after recording evidence of eye witnesses. At this stage, the evidence

collected by the prosecution involves all the three accused.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, there is no merit in petition and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner

shall be at liberty to file a new petition after examination of eye witnesses.

Petition is dismissed accordingly.