Rameshwar Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking regular bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case FIR No. 48 of 2022, dated 19.6.2022, registered under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) in Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P.

Status report stands filed. Record was also made available.

Prosecution case is that on 13.6.2022 an information was received in Police Station, Chirgaon that a dead body was lying in Pabber river, whereupon Police rushed to the spot and dead body was taken out with the help of local residents. During Jama Talashi of dead body Mobile Phone I-Tel was recovered from the pocket of pant. Injuries on right eye, nose, forehead of deceased were also noticed. Blood had also oozed from the nose of deceased. Local persons present on the spot were unable to identify the dead body. Dead body was sent for post mortem to CHC Sandasu, where one Surinder Singh came, and identified the deceased as his younger brother Narender Singh. Medical Officer CHC Sandasu referred the dead body for post mortem to IGMC, Shimla and on 14.6.2022 post mortem of deceased was conducted. As per forensic expert, on preliminary evidence, death was caused due to drowning, however, deceased was having about 19 injuries on his body, like contusions, abrasions and lacerated wounds etc.

Relatives of deceased were doubting murder of Narender Singh. In this regard inquiry was going on and during this from record of CCTV Cameras located on the road from Seema to Chirgaon, a vehicle was noticed coming from Seema side to Chirgaon having a yellow coloured tarpaulin in it and the said vehicle came back after some time with tarpaulin in it. On inquiry, this vehicle was found registered in the name of father of Kapil Rajta, which was being used by Kapil Rajta. In between, on 18.6.2022, Surinder Singh, elder brother of deceased submitted an application alleging that Kapil Rajta had murdered his brother, whereupon Kapil Rajta and his Nepali worker Mahesh were interrogated intensively. During inquiry Kapil Rajta disclosed that during night intervening 12-13th June, 2022, he, deceased Narender Singh and Ranvijay Singh consumed liquor on the side of Swimming Pool of Kapil Rajta situated at Jakhar Nala/Samoli and they went to their respective homes by late night. However, on next day, his Nepali Workers Mahesh, Sandesh and cook Rameshwar Singh noticed a dead body lying in the water in Swimming Pool and they informed Kapil Rajta about it. Kapil Rajta without informing anybody else came to the spot and with the help of his worker Mahesh, Sandesh and Niranjan, took out the dead body from the Swimming Pool and during that time cook Rameshwar (present petitioner) was deputed to keep an eye on other persons and they wrapped the dead body in a tarpaulin and put it in the vehicle of Kapil Ragta. Thereafter Kapil Rajta and Mahesh Nepali took the dead body in vehicle towards Badyara and threw it near Badyara in Pabbar River and came back alongwith tarpaulin and at a secluded place burnt the tarpaulin.

During interrogation, Mehash Nepail also admitted his role, in disposing of the dead body, with Kapil Rajta. Similarly Rameshwar (present petitioner), Niranjan and Sandesh also admitted their role in disposing of the dead body. On finding sufficient material to arrest them, they were arrested on 19.6.2022. Since then they are in custody.

It has also been stated in the status report that Kapil Rajta and Ranvijay Singh were interrogated separately, but they did not disclose the complete truth and thereafter they were interrogated in front of each other and during their interrogation it surfaced that while they were consuming liquor, a quarrel took place between Kapil Rajta and deceased Narender and there was a scuffle and Kapil Rajta pushed Narender in Swimming Pool and because of that Narender died due to drowning. It has further been stated in the status report that initially Ranvijay Singh expressed his ignorance about it, but when both of them, i.e. Ranvijay Singh and Kapil Rajta were inquired in front of each other and confronted, they admitted and verified argument, quarrel and beating with deceased Narender Singh and also admitted pushing deceased Narender Singh into the Swimming Pool by Kapil Rajta. Everything had happened in presence of Ranvijay Singh but, as per status report, he concealed this information.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner, despite having knowledge that a dead body was found in the Swimming Pool in suspicious circumstances, participated in disposing of the dead body in a concealed manner to destroy the evidence of incident and thus he is not entitled for bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was not having any knowledge about the quarrel taken place between deceased and Kapil Rajta and beating and push given to deceased Narender Singh by Kapil Rajta and, therefore, he could not be treated like main accused Kapil Rajta, but has to be treated differently, as challan presented against him is only under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is a bailable offence.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that being an offence for destroying evidence in a murder case punishable with capital punishment, petitioner can be punished for 7 years and thus prayer for releasing him on bail has been opposed.

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 application 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, present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, 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 make himself available to the Police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(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 in case petitioner indulges in repetition of similar offence(s) then, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution;

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

(ix) 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 required, passing of order can be verified from the High Court website or otherwise.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.