Allowed

Jasbir Singh Alias Bhau v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jun 2022CRMPM/1109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed bail applications for petitioners charged with assault and unlawful possession of arms. Court noted absence of recovery of revolver and discrepancy in victim statements regarding weapon use, ruling that detention is not justified pending investigation completion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail to furnish personal bond of `1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions of appearance, non-tampering, and no exit from India.

Jasbir Singh Alias Bhau Vs State of Hp — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 1^st DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

¶6

CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) No. 1108 of 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

SH. SHUBHAM SON OF SHRI ISHWARAN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE INDORA, TEHSIL INDORA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MR. JAGMOHAN SINGH CHANDEL, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶11

….RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS).

¶13

CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) No. 1109 of 2022

¶14

Between:

¶15

SH. JASBIR SINGH ALIAS BHAU SON OF SH. MANJEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE INDORA, TEHSIL INDORA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶16

….PETITIONER

¶17

(BY MR. JAGMOHAN SINGH CHANDEL, ADVOCATE) AND

¶18

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶19

….RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS).

¶21

¶22

Whether approved for reporting?

¶23

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Sequel to order dated 20.5.2022, whereby bail petitioners namely, Shubham and Jasbir Singh alias Bhau were ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of their arrest in case FIR No.102 of 2022, dated 9.5.2022, under sections 341, 325, 323, 336 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at police Station, Indora, District Kangra H.P., respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Kulbhushan has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned.

¶26

Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of the investigation by bail petitioners pursuant to order dated 20.5.2022, submits that though bail petitioners made themselves available at police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P., pursuant to order dated 20.5.2022, but since till date, they have not got recovery of revolver allegedly used in the incident effected, their prayer for grant of bail deserve outright rejection. While making this Court to peruse the record of investigation, learned Additional Advocate General states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that both the bail petitioners attacked complainant and other persons named in the complaint with sharp edged weapon and one of the bail petitioner, namely Shubham also fired in air with revolver

¶27

¶28

and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge them on bail because in the event of their being released on bail they may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that initially one of the victim/injured namely, Husan Singh Thakur in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, nowhere stated that on the date of alleged incident accused named hereinabove, especially Shubham ever made use of revolver, rather this person categorically stated in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C that while they were on their stone crusher and had requested accused named in the FIR not to stop vehicles from coming to their stone crusher, they gave them beatings with sharp edged weapon, as a consequence of which, they suffered multiple injuries. However, subsequently another victim/ injured Ankit Thakur in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C alleged that bail petitioner Shubham had also fired in air with revolver and such version of him has been further corroborated by other spot witnesses namely Sandesh Dadwal and Kunal Mahajan. It is not understood that why at first instance victim/injured Husan Thakur failed to report to the police that at the time of alleged incident use of revolver was made by one of bail petitioner Shubham. Most importantly, there is nothing on record that police recovered, if any, empty cartridge/ shell of bullet allegedly fired in the air by the petitioner namely Shubham at

¶30

¶31

the time of alleged incident from the spot. Moreover, medical evidence adduced on record nowhere reveals infliction of grievous injuries on the person of injured namely Husan Thakur and Ankit Thakur, rather Doctor attending upon victim/injured has specially stated that in the alleged incident both the victims have suffered simple injures with blunt weapon. Since accused, named in the FIR, have already got the recovery of sickle/ darat effected, their prayer for grant of bail cannot be denied on the ground that till date they have not got the recovery of revolver allegedly used by them in the alleged incident effected. Since very use of revolver at the time of alleged incident is doubtful, this Court sees no reason for denying the bail to the petitioners at this stage, who otherwise in terms of order dated 20.5.2022 have made themselves available to the Investigating Officer, enabling him to complete the investigation. Apart from above, victim/injured have received simple injuries and they are out of danger and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bars during the trial, conclusion whereof shall take considerable time.

¶32

By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be proved, in accordance with law.

¶33

¶34

Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has categorically held that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶35

A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

¶36

There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.

¶37

While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the

¶38

¶39

satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436Ain the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements ofArticle 21of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons

¶40

Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

¶41

¶42

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central

¶43

Bureau of Investigation ( 2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as

¶44

under:-

¶45

“ The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

¶46

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis

¶47

Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down the

¶48

following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail:

¶49

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

¶50

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions

¶59

are allowed and order dated 20.5.2022 passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, with following conditions:

¶60

a. they shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and 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;

¶61

b. the y shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶62

c. they shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶63

d. they shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶64

¶65

It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶66

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone.

¶67

The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶68

1^st June, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), (Shankar) Judge

¶69

(Shankar)

Jasbir Singh Alias Bhau v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh Alias Bhau 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deep Raj Vs Goverdhan Chauhan

Mast Ram Vs the Principal Secretary (Power)

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Pushpa Rana

Pooja and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

General Manager Northern Railways Vs Balbir Singh and Others

Manjeet Kumar Vs Jakir Hussain