Surjit Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIRNo. 48/11, dated 9.5.2011, registered at PoliceStation Baijnath, District Kangra, under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

It has been stated that the petitioner hasbeen falsely implicated in the case. On 8.5.2011,the deceased Uttam Chand and others were workingnear their home for construction of a new house. Atabout 3.00 p.m., some persons came there, they tookthe deceased on bike and scuffle took place with the deceased for unknown reasons. The petitioner is ateacher, he went on the spot where the deceased wasbeing beaten. He tried to save the deceased from theclutches of other persons. In the meantime, otherpersons also came on the spot and the main accusedfled away from the spot. On suspicion, thepetitioner has been implicated in the case andarrested along with other accused.

The bail application filed by thepetitioner has been dismissed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshalaon 2.11.2011. It has been stated that the petitioneris innocent, he has committed no offence. Theinvestigation in the case is complete. The challanhas also been submitted. The petitioner is ready tofurnish the bail bonds in accordance with thedirections of this Court. The prayer has been madefor releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed, the bail application of the petitioner has been opposed.

I have heard Learned Counsel for thepetitioner and learned Additional Advocate Generaland have also gone through the police file.

It has been stated in the status reportthat the case has been registered on the statementunder Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Pritam Chand, brotherof the deceased Uttam Chand. He has stated that on8.5.2011 he, his brother-in-law, Bahadur Ram, younger brother Uttam Chand and two masons wereworking on the construction of a house, at about 3.00 p.m., Lohku and Milkhi Ram came on motorcycle,they had consumed liquor and started talking withUttam Chand. They took Uttam Chand along with themon motorcycle and proceeded from Uparla Panjala toSansal.

Later on, he came to know that somebody hadgiven severe beatings to Uttam Chand near HanumanTemple and Uttam Chand had been taken towardsBaijnath Hospital. It has been stated that when theyreached near rain-shelter Mandhed, Subhash Chandand Sargi Devi brought the dead body of Uttam Chand.They kept the dead body of Uttam Chand in the rainshelter, blood was oozing out from the nose of thedeceased and there was head injury also. The accusedMilkhi Ram, Lohku, Gulab Singh and Surjit Singh werearrested on 11.5.2011. Later on Kartar Chand, BhagChand, Monu alias Manish were also arrested.

The motorcycle used in the commission ofthe offence was recovered, so also a pair of shoes,mobile with SIM. The doctor has given opinion thatthe death is due to coma by head injury and RFSLreport shows that no alcohol/poison is detected inviscera. It has been stated that it has come in theinvestigation all the seven accused including SurjitSingh gave beatings to the deceased at Sansal, nearKCC Bank, as a result of which Uttam Chand died. The challan has been submitted on 9.8.2011. The learnedAdditional Advocate General has stated that now the case is fixed on 12.12.2011 before the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala.

It has been stated by the learnedAdditional Advocate General that all the sevenaccused are in custody. Gulab Singh and Surjit Singhare brothers. Milkhi Ram is also related to SurjitSingh. Surjit Singh along with other accused hadgiven beatings to Uttam Chand at Sansal with kickand fist blows. The allegations against thepetitioner are serious. The case is fixed forconsideration of charge on 12.12.2011. Thus, keepingin view the allegations that the petitioner hasgiven beatings to the deceased Uttam Chand with kickand fist blows, the petitioner is not entitled tobail at this stage. The application is dismissed.

The observations made in the judgment arefor the disposal of the bail application and shallnot be construed as expression of opinion on themerits of the case.