Yash Pal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

The petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 198 of 2021 dated 22.7.2021 under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered

at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner is in custody since 23.7.2021.

Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

There is no iota of evidence, which may connect the petitioner with commission of alleged offence. The investigation in the case has been completed.

No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. As per petitioner, he is the only bread earner of his family, which includes his

wife, two daughters and one son. Petitioner has no other criminal case pending against him. There is no apprehension of petitioner absconding from

the course of justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, as may be imposed against him.

In response, status report has been filed. It is alleged that on 22.7.2021 one Baryam S/o Vidhi Ram, (now deceased) got recorded his statement

under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the police alleging inter-alia that on 21.7.2021, he was sitting in Courtyard outside his house, after having dinner and his

wife along with daughters had gone to sleep. At about 10.00 P.M. while cleaning courtyard, he found some crackers left after Diwali and he burnt

those crackers. On the noise of crackers, the bail petitioner along with Jeet Singh came out side the house of complainant and started abusing him, on

the pretext that why he was exploiting the crackers. They hit the complainant with a brick which caused injuries on his head. Petitioner was having a

knife in his hand with which, he inflicted injuries on the arm of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner and said Jeet Singh inflicted blows on

complainant with fists and kicks. He was saved by his wife and daughters. He had received injuries on head, arm, stomach eye and other parts of

body as a result of beatings given by petitioner and Jeet Singh.

The case was registered. However, on 22.7.2021, complainant breathed his last and Section 302 was added in the FIR. Petitioner was arrested.

During investigation, it was found that though the deceased had received injuries during the night on 21.7.2021, but he had not preferred to have

medical aid. It was during the mid of night that he started vomiting blood. He was taken to the hospital in the morning by his wife and brother where

he was advised CT scan. The deceased instead of adhering to the medical advise came back home without getting CT scan done. During day time on

22.7.2021 his wound above the eye started to bleed. He was being taken for CT Scan but he died on the way.

As per respondent, the petitioner on arrest had complaint of having been injured by the deceased by throwing a brick on his head. On medical

examination of petitioner, a wound was found on his head and he was also advised CT Scan. On completion of investigation, the challan has been filed

on 19.10.2021. It has also been stated in the status report that ethyl alcohol was detected in the contents of viscera of the deceased to the extent of

279.57 mg% (MOU=1.80) in blood and 296.13mg% (MOU=1.80) in urine. However, no poison was detected.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the status report as well as records contained in police file, produced for perusal

of the Court at the time of arguments.

It transpires from the material on record that on the night of 21.7.2021, the deceased had consumed excessive alcohol. On some cause, an

altercation took place between the deceased at one hand and bail petitioner and Jeet Singh on the other. In such altercation, injuries were received by

the deceased as also by the petitioner. In light of counter allegation, it is to be establish as to who was aggressor.

Undisputedly, the deceased did not avail the medical help for which none else can be blamed. The medical opinion as to the cause of death of

deceased, as rendered by the medical expert is as under: -

“On perusal of the above mentioned documents and exhibits, we are of the medical opinion that:

The cause of death in this case is traumatic shock due to sustaining multiple blunt force injuries.

Ethyl alcohol is detected in the viscera, blood and urine of deceased and its quantity in the blood and urine is 279.57mg% and 296.13mg%

respectively as per RFSL report.

The injuries present on the body of the deceased are mainly blunt force injuries and the possibility of sustaining these injuries in the circumstances

as alleged in inquest papers (25-39 form) i.e. hitting with bricks, fist and feet blows and thereafter fall cannot be ruled out.

The linear abrasions present over the outer aspect of left arm as mentioned in injury No.6 could also be possible with the pointed end of

karad/knife.â€​

Perusal of the aforesaid opinion does not reveal that any of the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death. As noticed above, though the deceased was injured, he omitted to avail medical help within time. Even, on being advised to have CT

Scan, he ignored and preferred to return home.

Perusal of statement of the deceased recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as well as statement of his wife and daughter also reveals that the

altercation was not pre-mediated. No motive has been attributed to petitioner or Jeet Singh for causing the injuries to the deceased, rather it has been

stated that though the petitioner was having a knife in his hand, he inflicted injuries with such knife on the arm of deceased, which medically were

found to be mere abrasions. It has also been reflected from the aforesaid statement that the petitioner allegedly had placed the knife on the throat of

deceased. Prima-facie appraisal of all these facts suggest that had the petitioner and his co-accused any intent to cause death of the deceased or to

cause any injuries to him, which in all probability was likely to cause his death, the knife could have been used to achieve the purpose. As far as the

injuries with brick caused on the head of deceased are concerned, as per the case of the prosecution itself, the brick was thrown from outside the

compound of the house of deceased. Had the petitioner and his co-accused any intent to kill the deceased, they could have easily inflicted more severe

injuries on the head of deceased or vital parts of the body, once they had over powered him.

This Court is not oblivious to the legal position that evidence is not to be scanned minutely at the stage of adjudication of bail application, yet the

Court is not precluded from looking into the material on record for finding prima-facie material against the bail petitioner, especially when he is

charged with serious offence like murder.

The petitioner is permanent resident of Village Sutrahar, P.O. Panjahra, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. There is no likelihood of his

absconding from the course of justice in case of his release on bail. In the given facts of the case, pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is neither

warranted nor required.

There is nothing on record to suggest that in case of release of petitioner on bail, the trial of the case shall be adversely affected. Such

apprehension, if any, can otherwise be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions for grant of bail. The only apprehension of the respondent is

that the petitioner on being released on bail may overawe the prosecution witnesses. Again such apprehension can be taken care of by imposing

appropriate conditions against the petitioner.

In light of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is ordered to

be released on bail in case FIR No. 198 of 2021 dated 22.7.2021 under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police

Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., on furnishing personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of

the learned trial Court. This order is, however, subject to the condition detailed hereinafter and it is clarified that in the event of petitioner violating any

of the conditions, imposed hereinafter, the bail granted to the petitioner stand cancelled:

i) That the petitioner regularly appear before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

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 the Court or to the Police.

iii) That the petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence.

iv) That any indulgence of petitioner in criminal activities during the continuance of this order shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the

petitioner.

v) That the petitioner shall not leave India till conclusion of trial without permission of the learned trial Court.

vi) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the bail applicant shall be liable to be cancelled.

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.