Surinder Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

The petitioner is accused in case FIR No.110 of 2021, dated 22.12.2021, registered under Sections 302, 365, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, at Police Station, Bangana, District Una, H.P.

Petitioner is charged with commission of murder of one Sunil Kumar on the intervening night of 16th and 17th December, 2021, by means of a gunshot.

Petitioner is under-trial and prosecution evidence in the trial is being recorded.

Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in the above noted case on the ground that he is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to allege any specific motive against petitioner for commission of alleged offence. It is also submitted that petitioner is permanent resident of Ward No. 5, Lidkot, Post Office Chulhari, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P. and in case he is released on bail, the trial of the case will not be affected as petitioner undertakes to remain present during each and every hearing of the case.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the prayer on the ground that the allegation against petitioner is serious in nature. The prosecution has sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with crime. In case the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he may abscond from the course of justice.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

The case of the prosecution is revealed from the contents of status report filed on behalf of the respondent. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 16th & 17th December, 2021, deceased Sunil Kumar had left his house at about 8.30 P.M. on the pretext of going to the fields in the company of petitioner for guarding the crops from wild animals. The said Sunil Kumar did not return back and his phone was also found switched off by his wife. Next morning a search was conducted all around the area by the family members and villagers, but no clue was found. The matter was reported to the police by the brother of the deceased. The police also searched for missing Sunil Kumar. On 22.12.2021, police received the information that a body was lying near rain shelter in village Matiyana. The body was identified to be that of Sunil Kumar. The investigation was carried after incorporating Section 304 IPC in the already registered FIR dated 22.12.2021. The petitioner was arrested and it is alleged that certain facts incriminating the petitioner were discovered during investigation on the basis of statement of petitioner recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The weapon allegedly used in the crime was sent for ballistics examination and as per report of the experts, the pellets recovered from the body of Sunil Kumar were opined to have been fired from the weapon of the petitioner. The pellets had caused multiple injuries on the body of the deceased Sunil Kumar and one of such injury was on the head, which was found to be sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.

The charge has already been framed against the petitioner and prosecution evidence is in the process of being recorded.

The allegation against the petitioner is very serious. The death is alleged to be caused by him by use of a lethal fire arm from close range. The investigating agency has been able to collect prima-facie material/ evidence incriminating the petitioner. The charge if proved against the petitioner may entail severe punishment.

The mere absence of proof of motive will not be sufficient to allow the prayer of the petitioner as against the other material available on record. The apprehension expressed by learned Deputy Advocate General regarding the possibility of petitioner fleeing from the course of justice cannot be brushed aside keeping in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner.

Since the petitioner is facing serious allegations, there is every likelihood that he may try to influence the prosecution witnesses after being released on bail.

In result, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Any observation made in this order 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 hereinabove.