Shubhakar Saket vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail on the grounds that during the trial,

the material witnesses have not supported the case set up by the prosecution.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Sessions Court. However, vide order dated 14.06.2019,

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, HP, dismissed the petition.

The bail petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Suneet Goel, learned 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, which led to the registration of the FIR, mentioned above, are that on the intervening night of 7/8th

March, 2016, the Police of Police Station Baddi, District Solan received a telephonic information that a quarrel is taking place at the place known as

Thetha. Upon this, the police party reached the spot and recorded the statement of Anil Kumar, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which led to registration

of FIR mentioned above. The complainant informed the police that he works as a labour and lives along with Asraf Ali, Rajneesh, Bakhshish, Astak

Mohd. in a room. In the neighbourhood, Shubhakar Saket accused also resides along with his brother. During the night, he heard commotion of quarrel

between brothers. After that Anil Saket, came out of his room and accused Shubhakar followed him carrying ‘Tawa’ in his hand. Thereafter

Shubhakar started beating Asraf Ali. He took him in the room and there started beating bolting the room from inside. After sometime, he came out of

window and his clothes were blood stained. When they opened the door, they found Asraf Ali to be dead.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a first offender and incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave

injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, Learned Deputy Advocate General contends that offence is heinous, accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail is likely to

send a wrong message to the society.

In this case there are large number of eye witnesses, who has seen the accused entering the room, when Asraf Ali was alive and when he came

out of the window, they noticed his dead body in the room and blood on the clothes of the accused.

Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, has refrred to the statements of ten witnesses, who have been examined. However, the documents which the learned

Counsel referred were neither filed with the petition, nor its copies supplied to the Court and the State. Thus, the Court cannot base any finding on a

document in the Counsel's brief and not on Court's file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made several other arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons

mentioned above, discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, at this stage, the petitioner fails to make out a case for bail. The petition is

dismissed with liberty to file a new bail application.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.