Dismissed¶28

Sonu v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jul 2024CRMPM/1062/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Successive regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC dismissed for want of changed circumstances; speedy-trial plea under Article 21 rejected as trial at final stage (prosecution evidence closed 28.05.2024, case listed for Section 313 CrPC statement); alleged kidnapping and murder of 17-year-old girl — IPC Sections 363, 366-A, 302; FIR No. 53/2019, PS Patalikuhal, Kullu; petitioner in custody since 16.07.2019; reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292; direction to conclude trial by 31.08.2024; Sushil Kukreja J; 2024:HHC:4615; Cr. MP(M) No. 1062 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; trial Court directed to conclude the trial on or before 31st August 2024. ¶28

Sonu Vs State of Hp — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; trial Court directed to conclude the trial on or before 31st August 2024.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 16.07.2019 with the trial not concluded, is entitled to regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in trial amounting to infringement of his right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The plea of violation of the right to speedy trial fails at this stage: although Article 21 guarantees speedy trial and an undertrial cannot be detained indefinitely, prosecution evidence has been closed (28.05.2024) and the case is listed for the accused's Section 313 statement, so it cannot be said the trial will not conclude in the near future.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

A successive bail application can be entertained only where a substantial (drastic) change in circumstances is established between the two applications; mere cosmetic changes during the time gap do not entitle the accused to bail.

¶24

Key takeaways

After the dismissal of the earlier regular bail application there is no change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application; therefore, in absence of changed circumstances, the successive bail application cannot be entertained.ratio¶28
Since the petitioner has been behind bars since 16.07.2019, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31st August 2024.ratio¶28
Any expression of opinion in the order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial Court will not be influenced by the observations made therein.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous — bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. — successive application — dismissal for absence of changed circumstances. The petitioner, in custody since 16.07.2019 in FIR No. 53/2019 (PS Patalikuhal, District Kullu) under Sections 363, 366-A and 302 IPC for the alleged abduction and murder of a 17-year-old girl, moved a successive regular-bail application after his earlier application (Cr. MP (M) No. 1259 of 2023) was dismissed on 25.09.2023. Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, the Court held that a successive bail application is entertainable only where a drastic/substantial change in circumstances is established between applications; cosmetic changes do not suffice, and no such change existed here. The contention that prolonged incarceration violated the Article 21 right to speedy trial was rejected because prosecution evidence stood closed on 28.05.2024 and the case was listed for the accused's Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Application dismissed; the trial Court was directed to conclude the trial on or before 31st August 2024, with an express stipulation that no observation in the order is an expression on the merits.

¶1

1 2024:HHC:4615

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP(M) No. 1062 of 2024 Reserved on: 28.06.2024 Decided on : 05.07.2024

¶4

Sonu ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .…Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondent: Mr. Raj Negi and Ms. Niyati Thakur, Deputy Advocates General. ________________________________________________

¶9

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶10

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking bail in case FIR No. 53/2019, dated 02.07.2019, registered at Police Station Patalikuhal, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 363, 366-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

¶11

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

¶12

2 2024:HHC:4615

¶13

Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the status report filed by the State, are that on 02.07.2019, complainant Bhadur Singh lodged a complaint before the police, alleging therein that his daughter (deceased), aged about 17 years, was missing since 30.06.2019 and they tried to search her in their close relations and relatives, but she was not found anywhere. Thereafter, the police procured the abstract of Pariwar Register of the deceased, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after obtaining the call details of phone numbers of the deceased and her mother, it was found that on 30.06.2019 at 08:01 p.m., the deceased made a call from the mobile phone of her mother to accused Sonu (petitioner herein) and when the call details of the phone numbers of the deceased as well as the petitioner were examined, it was found that telephonic conversations used to take place between them and on that basis, a case under Section 366A, IPC was registered against the petitioner and after that he was arrested on 16.07.2019.

¶14

During the course of investigation, the petitioner made a confessional statement to the police that on

¶15

3 2024:HHC:4615

¶16

30.06.2019 , he had telephonic conversation with the deceased on her mobile phone and she asked him to come to her, otherwise she might take any wrong step, so he came to her room and after some time, her brother also came in the room and he (petitioner) had hidden himself behind the door. However, the brother of the deceased had seen him, who went to inform his mother, but in the meanwhile, the petitioner fled away from the spot and started watching the deceased from a nearby tree. After some time, the deceased also came there and he took her towards Gharatnala and on the way, he planned to kill her and he firstly had hidden her slipper in the bushes, then her cosmetic articles were hidden by him in the bushes near Hirni Road and thereafter, he took her towards Beas river where he pushed her in the river. On the basis of the said statement made by the accused- petitioner, Section 302, IPC was also added and on receipt of the report from SFSL, Junga, the charge-sheet was presented before the trial Court on 26.08.2019.

¶17

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and he has been

¶18

4 2024:HHC:4615

¶19

falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is sole bread earner of the family and his entire family is dependent upon him. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated.

¶20

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.

¶21

Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a bail application being Cr. MP (M) No. 1259 of

¶22

5 2024:HHC:4615

¶23

2023 before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was allegedly involved in a serious offence of committing murder of a minor girl, who was aged about 17 years.

¶24

It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing him on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2019 and the trial in

¶26

6 2024:HHC:4615

¶27

the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, therefore, he deserves to be released on bail on the ground of delay in trial. Although, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees speedy trial and an under trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail/custody for an indefinite period, but as per the status report, the evidence of the prosecution has been closed on 28.05.2024 and the case is now listed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Therefore, it can not be said that the trial will not be concluded in near future.

¶28

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of the regular bail application, there is no change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained. The application is hereby dismissed. As the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.07.2019, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31^st August 2024 .

¶29

7 2024:HHC:4615

¶30

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.

¶31

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶32

July 05, 2024

¶33

(raman)

Sonu v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Danis Dugal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Yogesh Kumar

Rajan Babu Vs Rakesh Babu

Sukhwinder Singh Vs State of Hp

Chhape Ram Vs Khem Chand and Anr.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Hp