Sachin Chaudhary vs State Of H.P.

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 21 of 2022 dated 8.2.2022, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. under Sections 302, 201, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

On 8.2.2022, a telephonic information was received at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. that two brothers namely Vijender @ Pepsi and Suraj had a fight. Police visited the spot and recorded statement of Sh. Jasbir under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the complainant was a retired Assistant Engineer from Electricity Department. The house of Nimi Devi was in front of his house. Nimi Devi had two sons from two different marriages and their names were Suraj Kumar and Vijender @ Pepsi. Nimi Devi with her two sons was residing there. During the intervening night of 7th and 8th February, 2022 at about 12.30 a.m. complainant was sleeping in his house. He heard commotion from the house of Nimi Devi. He went out and noticed that Vijender @ Pepsi and Sachin Chaudhary (petitioner) were inflicting flows on Suraj Kumar and were abusing him. Vijender @ Pepsi and petitioner were habitual of raising fights in routine. Both of them i.e. Vijender @ Pepsi and petitioner caused injuries on the person of Suraj Kumar by repeatedly striking him against metalled road. Blood had started flowing on the road. In the meanwhile, Nimi Devi came out and asked Vijender @ Pepsi and petitioner to leave Suraj Kumar, as he was dead. Both the accused persons pushed Nimi and stated that Suraj Kumar was not dead as yet. During this period, Vijender @ Pepsi called someone on phone and was heard saying “that you called yourself paternal aunt of Suraj and you use to caution Suraj that he should not come before us because we will kill him and today we have killed him and his body is lying on the road”. Thereafter, both the accused persons dumped the body of Suraj in the vehicle and removed from the place of occurrence. Later when Vijender @ Pepsi came back with vehicle. Complainant asked him as to whether Suraj had grievous injuries, accused Vijender @ Pepsi did not reply and simply pointed out towards the vehicle and the body was lying therein.

During investigation, the police has collected evidence against Vijender @ Pepsi and petitioner. The statement of the complainant is stated to have corroborated by scientific evidence. Injuries were also found on the hands, specially knuckles of the accused persons. Their blood stained cloths were recovered. It is further alleged against the accused persons that when they had taken the injured Suraj to hospital, they had given false version that the injuries were suffered by Suraj in accident.

The cause of death of Suraj has been opined due to shock on account of multiple injuries sustained by him. A huge amount of ethyl alcohol was found in the blood and urine of Suraj.

Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in the above noted case on the ground that he is innocent and has not committed any crime. It is further submitted that the story alleged by the prosecution is a concocted version and the real genesis has been suppressed. It is contended that the deceased Suraj was drunk, during intervening night of 7th and 8th February, 2022. He was arrested by the police under Section 114 of the Police Act and was later handed over to his brother accused Vijender @ Pepsi and the petitioner was a witness to said handing over.

As per petitioner, he has no criminal history. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the given facts of the case did not suggest any pre-meditation or intention on part of petitioner to cause the death of deceased Suraj. Petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of VPO Ghurkari, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from the course of justice.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer made in the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is accused of a very serious and heinous crime. Accusations against him are serious and grave. Petitioner and his co-accused have acted in a cruel manner. The trial of the case is yet to begin and material witnesses are to be examined. In case of release of petitioner on bail, there is every likelihood that the prosecution witnesses may be wonover under threat, coercion or any other means. It is further stated that petitioner is involved in another case registered at Police Station, Kangra, vide FIR No. 216 of 2017 dated 11.8.2017 under Sections 147, 149, 354, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

At the stage of adjudication of plea of bail, the nature of accusation and the evidence collected in support thereof become relevant factors, especially when the offence alleged to have been committed may entail capital punishment.

In the given facts of the case, undoubtedly, the allegations against petitioner are of commission of offence of murder. There is eye witness to the crime, who has categorically stated in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that the deceased was repeatedly struck against metalled road by petitioner and his co-accused and blood had started flowing on the road. Further the police has also collected the evidence that the deceased was drunk at the time of incident. The scientific evidence collected during investigation also implicates the petitioner. Thus, it is a case where prima-facie sufficient evidence has been collected to implicate the petitioner.

Another concern of this Court at this stage is the conclusion of fair trial. Material witnesses are yet to be examined more particularly the eye witness to the incident. Since the petitioner is accused of a very serious and heinous offence, the possibility of his attempting to winover material witnesses of the prosecution cannot be ruled out. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was no pre-mediation to cause death of deceased Suraj also will not help the cause of petitioner for the reasons that the petitioner and his co-accused were seen striking the deceased against metalled road repeatedly. The proof of requisite intent or knowledge as required for proving the guilt of petitioner will be subject to trial. In the facts noticed above, it cannot be said that the requisite intent or knowledge was completely missing.

Even otherwise, the conduct of petitioner and his co-accused after inflicting injuries upon deceased Suraj is a factor which needs to be considered for the purpose of adjudication of instant petition. Petitioner and his co-accused had taken the injured Suraj to RPMGC Hospital, Tanda and had not disclosed the true factual position. They had given a wrong history of roadside accident as reason for injuries suffered by deceased Suraj. The injured was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and without reporting the matter to the police, he was being taken to Chandigarh and on the way, he breathed his last.

Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not held entitled to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.