Ronki Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

This petition has been filed, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No.79/2018 dated 24.06.2018, registered at Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 302 , 201 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' in short).

Petitioner Ronki Ram was arrested on 27.06.2018 and since then, he is behind the bars.

As per status report, daughter of co-accused Darshan Singh, namely, Reena Kumari wife of Tapender Singh was missing since 13.06.2018 and was traced by the police and produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Paonta Sahib on 23.06.2018, before whom she had expressed her desire neither to accompany her parents nor her husband, but to live an independent life even without taking her daughter with her. On the basis of her statement, so recorded, she was set free by the SDM.

It is further the case of prosecution that after setting Reena Kumari free, her father Darshan Singh alongwith his relatives and others i.e. Bhura Ram, Ronki Ram (petitioner), Kali Ram, Inder Kant alias Mintu, Naresh Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, outside the office of SDM, had convinced her to accompany them to her parental house and she was taken to her parental house by her father Darshan Singh, Bhura Ram, Ronki Ram (petitioner) and Kali Ram.

At home, Reena Kumari asserted her desire, as expressed by her before the SDM, without acceding to the request of the family members, whereupon Darshan Singh, Bhura Ram, Ronki Ram (petitioner) and Kali Ram had conspired to kill her and accordingly during the intervening night of 23/24.06.2018, she was hanged with the hook of the lintel with Dupatta and after her death other relatives were approached for cremating her dead body. After cremating the dead body of Reena Kumari, cremation place was washed and her remains taken to Haridwar for performing final rituals, but the same were performed without recording the same in the books maintained by their family Panda (Pandit).

The entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence collected during investigation. There is no direct evidence against any of the accused except that they had convinced deceased Reena Kumari to accompany the accused persons to her parental house from the compound of the office of SDM.

In status report, it is also stated that it was Darshan Singh, who had hanged Reena Kumari with her Dupatta by putting plastic stool/table on a big stool/table and other accused Bhura Ram, Ronki Ram (petitioner) and Kali Ram had helped him and it was Darshan Singh, who had tied the Dupatta on the neck of Reena Kumari and had removed the stool.

After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court on 20.09.2018 and now trial is pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that all accused, except petitioner, have been enlarged on bail and four of them have been granted bail by this Bench, by allowing Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1764 of 2018, titled as Lalit Mohan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1127 of 2019, titled as Bhura Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; Cr.M.P.(M) No.1128 of 2019, titled as Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1843 of 2019, titled as Darshan Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereas, three co-accused have been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by allowing Cr.M.P.(M) No. 251 of 2019, titled as Inder Kant vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; Cr.M.P.(M) No.252 of 2019, titled as Naresh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; and Cr.M.P(M) No. 253 2019, titled as Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. It is further submitted that petitioner is 70 years old and suffering from various health problems and is under regular treatment of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh as well as Dr. Y.S. Parmar Government Medical College & Hospital, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. To substantiate his claim, he has referred photocopies of Patient's Cards/prescription slips filed with the petition.

Perusal of record reveals that role of Lalit Mohan, Ravinder Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Inder Kant, was not identical to the role stated to have been performed by the petitioner in the incident. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity with these co-accused.

Referring Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' in short), learned counsel for the petitioner has put forth arguments for release of the petitioner on bail on the ground that petitioner Ronki Ram is 70 years old and is suffering from various diseases, for his stage of life. It is contended that even the Courts, other than High Court or Court of Session, have been given discretion to release an accused brought before the said Court involved for commission of a cognizable offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years and more but not less than seven years, in case such person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm and also in case the Court is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason.

As per prosecution story, petitioner Ronki Ram was accompanying main accused Darshan Singh alongwith Bhura Ram, Kali Ram and was associated in the commission of offence. Main accused Darshan Singh has been enlarged on bail on medical grounds as he was suffering from 90% blockage in his artery and was also admitted in IGMC, Shimla and it was reported by the Jail authorities that post operation care for him could not be arranged in the Jail for want of enough medical facilities.

Role of petitioner is identical to the role attributed by the prosecution to co-accused Bhura Ram and Kali Ram. Petitioner is behind the bars since last more than two years. Bhura Ram and Kali Ram, on account of their advance age and ailment, have been enlarged on bail on 30.07.2019. Petitioner is also a senior citizen and has also placed on record documents related to treatment, which he has undergone from PGI, Chandigarh and is undergoing in Dr.Y.S. Parmar, Medical College & Hospital, Nahan. The said fact has not been controverted in the status report.

No doubt, provisions of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. are related to a situation when any person, accused of, or suspected of, commission of any non-bailable offence, is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, but principles contained therein are also to be kept in mind at the time of considering bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 439 Cr.P.C., it has been provided that High Court or Court of Session may direct release of any person on bail, including a person involved in commission of offence of the nature specified in sub-Section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing any condition, which it considers necessary for the purpose of granting bail.

Considering the entire material placed on record before me, particularly keeping in view the age and ailment of the petitioner and also in view of the fact that co - accused, having identical role in commission of offence, have already been enlarged on bail in July 2019, I find that, at this stage, petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.79/2018 dated 24.06.2018, under Sections 302 , 201 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station, Majra, District Sirmour, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/ - with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of trial Court, subject to following conditions:-

(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 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; and

(vii) that he shall not leave the territory of India without prior information. He shall inform the Police/Court his contact number and shall keep on informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in future.

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 as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

In case the petitioner violates any condition 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate/ 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.