Allowed

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC22 Jun 2017CRMPM/787/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, acting on bail petitions by two accused in a murder case, held that further detention in judicial custody is warranted prima facie. The Court released the petitioners on bail by furnishing personal bonds and sureties, subject to conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each, subject to conditions of court appearance and non-interference.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr. MP (M) Nos. 787 & 788 of 2017.

¶3

Decided on: 22^nd June, 2017

¶4

Cr.M.P(M) No. 787 of 2017

¶5

Rakesh Kumar .......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….…Respondent. Cr.M.P(M) No. 788 of 2017 Ranjeet Kumar .......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….…Respondent.

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate.

¶9

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Pramod Thakur, Addl. A.G and Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G.

¶10

ASI Ranjeet Singh, IO, Police Station Jogindernagar, District Mandi is also present in person.

¶11

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral).

¶12

This judgment shall dispose of both the

¶13

petitions arising out of FIR No. 199/16 registered

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

against them and their co-accused Gautam Singh, Rishi Kumar and Shrawan Singh under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Their co-accused Gautam Singh has been released on bail by this Court vide judgment date 26^th April, 2017 passed in Cr.M.P(M) No. 485/2017. Another coaccused Rishi Kumar and Shrawan Kumar allegedly involved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC also stands admitted on bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi camp at Jogindernagar. Both the accused-petitioners are, however, presently lodged in judicial custody. The report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands filed against them in the trial Court and the case against them is at the stage of consideration of charge.

¶17

The allegations, as disclosed from the record, against the accused-petitioners and their co-accused

¶18

¶19

Gautam Singh, in a nut-shell, are that they were occupying car bearing registration No. HPO1M-1313. The same belongs to accused-petitioner Ranjeet Singh @ Billa. In between 7.15-7.25 p.m., they arrived in Laghu market, Chauntra. They met deceased Naresh Bisht there. The deceased allegedly was under the influence of liquor. Accused-petitioner Rakesh @ Rakka on the wheel of the car stopped the same and they all alighted therefrom. Hot exchanges allegedly took place between them and the deceased, on some dispute regarding paragliding. Though, accused-petitioners left that place in the vehicle towards Chauntra side, however, threatened the deceased with dire consequences. When they were at Bajgar river, turned the vehicle behind and again came to Chauntra bazaar. Deceased Naresh Bisht @ Chotu was still present there. They all quarreled with him. Accused-petitioner Ranjeet Singh had taken out a knife from the car and stabbed the

¶20

¶21

deceased therewith. It is thereafter they all fled away from that place.

¶22

The investigation conducted by the police only speaks about the altercation initially took place between the deceased and the accused persons, however, qua that also they have associated the witnesses who had come to Chauntra Bazar to consume alcohol. The allegation that the accused party again returned to Chauntra Bazar from Bajgar khud, cogent and reliable evidence qua it is missing, as no-one has been associated from the Bazar who

¶23

may have witnessed the occurrence i.e. inflicting injuries by accused-petitioner Ranjeet Singh on the person of deceased with knife. On the other hand, some of the persons associated by the police during the course of investigation have stated that it is the deceased who was under the influence of liquor and had been abusing the people in the market without any rhyme or reasons and even slapped an old

¶24

¶25

person sitting in the rain shelter. Another person assaulted by him allegedly went to Police Chowki, Sainthal.

¶26

This Court avoids further elaboration of the evidence so collected by the investigating agency as in that event, prejudice is likely to be caused to the case of either party, however, in this backdrop, suffice would it to say that the nature of evidence collected

¶27

by the investigating agency, at this stage, further detention of the accused-petitioners in the judicial custody is not at all warranted. Otherwise also, it is for

¶28

the Court ceased of the matter of this nature to strike out balance between the freedom and liberty of a citizen and the gravity of offence he/she committed

¶29

as per the investigation conducted and evidence collected by the investigating agency. In the nature of the evidence collected, this Court is prima-facie satisfied that both the accused-petitioners are no more required to be detained any further in custody.

¶30

¶31

Being so, both the applications are allowed. Consequently, the accused-petitioners who have been arrested in connection with case FIR No. 199/16 in Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The accused-petitioners shall further abide by the following conditions:

¶32

They shall;

¶33

(a) regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

¶34

(b) not temper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

¶35

¶36

¶37

him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Investigating Officer.

¶38

(d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶39

It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse

¶40

their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed

¶41

upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶42

Any observations made hereinabove shall

¶43

not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of

¶44

the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of

¶45

these petitions alone. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Copy dasti.

¶47

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) June 22, 2017 (naveen) Judge.

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp

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

Jagdish Chand (Deceased through legal Heirs) Vs Datta Ram

Nand Lal Vs Tek Chand

Kiran Sood Vs Akashi Thakur

Collector Land Acquisition Vs Kanshi Ram

Parkash Chand Vs Gaya Prasad

Saroop Chand Vs Parshotam Lal and Others