Yuv Raj vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for committing murder has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed petition under Section 439 CrPC before this Court. However, vide order dated 5.3.2020, a coordinate Bench of this

Court dismissed the petition.

The petition is silent about criminal history, however, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anaida Kuthiala, Advocate 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 are that on 23rd October, 2018, the police officials recorded statement of complainant Lajya Devi,

under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She stated that one of her daughters was married, however, her husband abandoned her 19 years ago. She further stated

that her daughter is blessed with a son named Bhupender. Because of her abandonment, she has provided four biswas of land to her daughter, where

she has constructed a house. She took care of her and Bhupender and even shared the burden of marriage. She stated that yesterday her daughter

informed her that at about 6.30 p.m., Bhupender along with her daughter had gone to Baral Bazar to buy crackers. After sometime, the daughter

returned home, but Bhupender did not turn up. After sometime they received a phone call from hospital that Bhupender was brought to the Hospital in

injured condition. They inquired about the incident and came to know that from a place, opposite the shop of Om Prakash, Bhupender was taken to

Hospital and he was dropped at that place, after giving him beatings. Later on, Bhupender was shifted to IGMC Shimla for treatment, from where he

was again shifted to PGI Chandigarh. Based on the information, the Police registered the FIR under Sections 342, 323 IPC. Later on, on 26th

October, 2018, Bhupender succumbed to the injuries in PGI Chandigarh. Thereafter, Section 302 IPC was inserted in the FIR. The investigation

revealed involvement of Yuv Raj, petitioner herein and he was arrested on 27th October, 2018. The police also recovered the car used in the offence.

Since after postmortem, the cause of death was ‘blunt trauma to head’ as such, the investigation proceeded towards that direction. The

investigation revealed that deceased Bhupender Kumar along with accused Yuv Raj, had purchased beer from a liquor vend and then both of them

went towards Karsog Bus Stand. In the car, they entered into arguments and then started beatings each other and subsequently Yuv Raj, with a view

to, kill him threw him on the road. The FSL detected 141.85 mg% of Alcohol from the blood sample of the deceased.

Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anaida Kuthiala, Advocate contends that the incarceration before the proof of guilt would

cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner.

Another argument on behalf of the State is that the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message

to society.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain statements and memos from the police report, prepared under Section 173(2) CrPC, copies of

which the accused had duly received in compliance to Section 207 CrPC. However, the documents which the leanred 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.

Leanred 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. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution

or the accused.

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.