Yuvraj Parihar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No.223 of 2020, dated 15.09.2020, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.

It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and hired a taxi for a long-distance journey to rob the driver of the vehicle and eliminate him to destroy the evidence. They carried a weapon (a knife/dagger) and chilli powder. They hired a taxi bearing registration No. HP-01A-9543 near the old Bus Stand, Shimla, H.P., for ₹4500/-, which was being driven by Harish Kumar. The accused, Yuvraj, pretended to vomit on the way and asked Harish to stop the car. Sahil Maan threw the chilli powder into Harish's eyes. The other accused overpowered him and gave him beatings. The accused, Sahil Maan, stabbed Harish with a knife. Harish sustained grievous injuries to his vital organs, leading to his death. The accused fled in the stolen vehicle, but they were arrested at Panipat. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no direct or indirect evidence to connect him with the commission of the crime. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Jammu & Kashmir. He belongs to a respectable family and has deep roots in society. There is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. He is the sole earner of the family, and his continued incarceration would cause hardship to his family members. The investigation is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.09.2020, and the trial has not concluded. This violates the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that Harish Kumar, disclosed that he was a driver of a Taxi bearing registration No. HP-01A-9543. He was taking the passengers from Shimla to Chintpurni. He was attacked by those passengers with a knife. He was taken to the hospital. Davinder Singh made the statement that he was the driver of the truck bearing registration no. HP63-3431. He was stopped by one person who boarded the truck and asked for help. He became unconscious subsequently. His name was found to be Harish Kumar, who was attacked by the occupants of the car. The Police conducted the investigation. Harish Kumar succumbed to his injuries subsequently. The Police found during the investigation that Yuvraj, the petitioner, Sahil, and Rohit Singh had conspired together to hire a vehicle at Shimla and thereafter to snatch it on the way. They hired the vehicle of Harish Kumar to Chintpurni. Yuv Raj asked the driver to stop the vehicle as he was feeling nauseous. Sahil put the chilli powder in the eyes of Harish Kumar. Lalit stabbed Harish with a knife. A truck reached the spot in the meantime. The petitioner and other persons ran away from the spot. The report of analysis has been received, and as per the report, the blood sample of deceased Harish Kumar matched the blood sample taken from the spot. Blood was found on the jacket and pants of Sahil and the pants of Lalit. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the deceased died due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of hypovolemic shock caused by the injuries to vital organs. Challan was presented before the Court and is listed for prosecution evidence on 12.05.2026. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

I have heard Mr V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

Mr V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him to the commission of the crime. The petitioner has remained behind bars for more than five years, and his right to a speedy trial is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State, submitted that the prosecution has examined 51 witnesses and the matter is listed for recording the statements of the prosecution's witnesses on 12/05/2026. There is no delay in the progress of the trial, and the delay that occurred was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a circumstance beyond the control of any person. The offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and is punishable with extreme punishment of death. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380:

(i) Broad principles for the grant of bail

In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9)

"7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or a conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, "The Criminal Prosecution in England" (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 - Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.]

Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance." (emphasis supplied)

In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge." (emphasis supplied)

This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)

"3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While the placement of the accused in society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)

"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." (emphasis supplied)

xxxxxxx

One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para 35)

"35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused." (emphasis supplied)

Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: 1977 SCC (Cri) 594: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 261 that the normal rule is bail and not jail, except where the gravity of the crime or the heinousness of the offence suggests otherwise. It was observed at page 308:

The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime...."

The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The status report mentions that the deceased Harish Kumar had disclosed that he was carrying four persons to Chintpurni in his vehicle bearing registration number HP-01A-9543. The police traced the mobile phone of the deceased Harish Kumar, and found that the vehicle was moving towards Delhi. The police contacted the Haryana police and asked them to detain the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-01A-9543. Haryana police intercepted the vehicle and found Sahil, Lalit Dagar, Rohit Singh, Yuvraj Parihar (present petitioner) and Parmod Kumar, travelling in the vehicle. The police also recovered a handkerchief having Chili powder in it. The police found the driving licence of Harish Kumar, PAN, Aadhar and ATM Cards and a passbook of Rakesh Kumar and two bags in it. The police also found the blood-stained clothes from the vehicle. These were sent to the SFSL, and as per the report of analysis, chilli powder was found on the handkerchief. The DNA of the deceased was found on the jacket and pants of Sahil and the pants of Lalit Dagar. All these circumstances, prima facie, show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of the crime. Therefore, the submission that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated cannot be accepted at this stage.

It was submitted that there is a delay in the progress of the trial, and the prosecution has failed to complete the evidence. This submission will not help the petitioner. The certified copies of the order sheets show that the witnesses could not be examined due to the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was thereafter listed on different dates, and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The status report shows that the statements of 51 witnesses have been recorded, and only 12 witnesses remain to be examined. The examination of 51 witnesses does not show any delay in the progress of the trial, and it cannot be said that the petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated.

It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous and severely punishable with the death penalty. The petitioner and the co-accused had hired a taxi and killed the driver on the way, taking advantage of his helplessness. They sped away from the spot and were apprehended on the way to Delhi. This shows the heinous nature of the crime.

It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240: 1978 SCC (Cri) 115: 1977 SCC OnLine SC 327 that when the punishment is severe, the person is not entitled to bail. It was observed at page 244:

"6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must revolve. When the case is finally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a different footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage, and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve a sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In this perspective, the relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case. As Erle. J. indicated that when the crime charged (of which a conviction has been sustained) is of the highest magnitude and the punishment for it assigned by law is of extreme severity, the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting, that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should he be enlarged. [ Mod. Law Rev. p. 50 ibid., 1852 I E & B 1] Lord Campbell, C.J., concurred in this approach in that case, and Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows: [Mod. Law Rev. ibid., pp. 50-51]

"I do not think that an accused party is detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufficient probable grounds for the charge against him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial; and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important: the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable if convicted. In the present case, the charge is that of wilful murder; the evidence contains an admission by the prisoners of the truth of the charge, and the punishment of the offence is, by law, death."

It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue.

Thus, the nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment would disentitle the petitioner from the concession of bail.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail at this stage. However, he is at liberty to file a fresh bail petition in case the trial is not concluded expeditiously.

No other point was urged.

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.