Allowed

Mehar Singh v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC26 Dec 2011CRMPM/1038/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two bail applications filed by petitioners accused of offences including dacoity and atrocities on caste grounds. The Court observed that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the case could be tried at large and allowed bail on furnishing bonds.

What did the court decide?

The petitions to grant bail to the petitioners are allowed. They are to be released on furnishing personal bonds of ₹25,000 each with one surety of like amount.

Mehar Singh Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Himachal Pradesh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.M.P.(M) No.1038 of 2011 & Cr.M.P.(M) No.1039 of 2011.

¶4

Date of decision: 26.12. 2011.

¶5

1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1038 of 2011.

¶6

Mehar Singh son of Amar Singh, r/o Village Surella, PO Khroti, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba (HP).

¶7

......Petitioner.

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶10

......Respondent.

¶11

Application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail.

¶12

2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1039 of 2011.

¶13

1. Parveen Kumar son of Bhagat Ram, Village Bhandar, PO Dighai, Tehsil Salooni, Distt. Chamba (HP).

¶14

2. Kuldeepak Singh, s/o Amar Singh, Village Bhandar, PO Dighai, Tehsil Salooni, Distt. Chamba (HP).

¶15

......Petitioners.

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶18

......Respondent.

¶19

Application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail.

¶20

Coram

¶21

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.

¶22

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ No

¶23

For the Petitioners : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. ( in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1038 of 2011)

¶24

Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate (in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1039 of 2011)

¶25

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes

¶26

¶27

For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr.J.S.Rana,Asstt. A.G.( in both the petitions).

¶28

Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral).

¶29

This judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 1038 and 1039 of 2011, both having arisen out of FIR No. 113 dated 08.12.2011, registered at Police Station, Kihar,District Chamba, under Sections 382, 341,323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1038 of 2011 has been filed by petitioner Mehar Singh and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1039 of 2011 has been filed by petitioners Parveen Kumar and Kuldeepak Singh.

¶30

Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1038 of 2011.

¶31

It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is law-abiding citizen and is presently working as teacher (TGT Arts) under P.T.A. Scheme at Government Middle School, Khaddar. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶32

Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1039 of 2011.

¶33

The petitioners Praveen Kumar and Kuldeepak Singh have filed Cr.M.P.(M) No.1039 of 2011 for releasing them on bail and have taken almost similar grounds as taken by the petitioner Mehar Singh in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1038 of 2011.

¶34

The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1038 of

¶35

¶36

The bail application has been opposed. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the report of Rattan Chand, Vice President, Gram Panchayat Pukhari. It has been stated that on 07.12.2011 the complainant was travelling in a private vehicle along with Vipin and two more boys from Sundla to his home. At Sundla Colony Chowk, Mehar Singh and two boys were standing on the side of the road at about 7.30 p.m. The vehicle was stopped by Ami Chand on the signal given by Mehar Singh. Mehar Singh immediately came, opened the door of the vehicle and caught hold the complainant from his neck and pulled him out, he gave a punch on his face. The boys accompanying Mehar Singh also started giving fist and kick blows to the complainant, they abused him and called him by caste. Mehar Singh threatened the complainant that in case he would get down from the vehicle on the way, he will kill him. He also asked Ami Chand not to give lift to the complainant.

¶37

It has been stated that the complainant was saved by Ami Chand and Vipin. Mehar Singh followed the vehicle of complainant along with boys on his bike. The vehicle was stopped in the colony. They raised calls in the name of Ami Chand saying where he had concealed the complainant. They then said that today only he got a punch on the face, next day he would be finished. The complainant has stated that he received injuries both visible and invisible on his person and his sweater has been torn near the neck, drops of blood have also fallen on the sweater. It has been alleged that during beatings the accused have snatched from complainant 20,000/-, ATM Card, driving licence and gold chain worth18,000/-. On this, case has been registered.

¶38

¶39

It has been stated that it has come during investigation that complainant has received simple injuries. The petitioners had gone underground, but appeared in the Police Station on 15.12.2011 along with interim order of the Court. The motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-48A-1128 was taken into possession from Mehar Singh, but the accused were not disclosing anything about `20,000/-, ATM Card, licence and gold chain. They have denied that they have snatched these items from the complainant. The caste certificates of the accused have been taken, so also the caste certificate of the complainant. It has been stated that the petitioners in the event of bail are likely to threaten the witnesses. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail.

¶40

I have heard both the sides and have perused the police file. It has come in the status report that the complainant has received simple injuries. Some recoveries have been made. The complainant has alleged that petitioners have given him beatings, called him by caste and snatched away 20,000/- , ATM Card, driving licence and gold chain from him. The complainant has stated that he was travelling in the vehicle which was being driven by Ami Chand and one Vipin Kumar was also in the vehicle in addition to two boys. Ami Chand has stated that he was told by complainant that accused have snatched 20,000/-, ATM Card, driving licence and gold chain from him.

¶41

Vipin Kumar in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Rattan Chand had not stated about snatching of gold chain and cash by the assailants. The petitioners were granted interim bail on 13.12.2011. It is not the case of the Investigating Agency that petitioners have misused the interim bail. The recovery of the items allegedly

¶42

¶43

snatched from the complainant can be made even when petitioners are on bail. It has not been stated for what purpose the complainant had kept `20,000/- with him at the relevant time. In view of material on record, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶44

In view of above, Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 1038 and 1039 of 2011 are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.113 dated 08.12.2011, registered at Police Station, Kihar,District Chamba, under Sections 382, 341,323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `25,000/each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar (Judicial) to be furnished during the course of the day today with the conditions that petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

¶45

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail applications and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶46

Copy 'dasti'.

¶47

( Kuldip Singh ), Judge.

¶48

December 26, 2011. (Krt)

Mehar Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehar Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Luxmi Dutt Vs Jai Ram

Shyam Verma Vs State

Rajesh Kumar Vs State

Chuharu Ram Vs Chitra Devi

Satish Kumar Vs State

Robinder Singh Vs State