Harpreet Vs State of Hp

For the petitioner(s) : M/s Suneet Goel and Karan Kapoor, Advocates, for the petitioner(s), in both the petitions. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent(s), in both the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶13

As both the petitions arise out of the same FIR,

¶14

therefore, they have been decided vide common order.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

2

¶17

Petitioners herein, are accused in FIR No.29 of 2019, dated 19.06.2019, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’ for short), at Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan, H.P. Petitioner Harpreet is stated to be in custody since 01.05.2021 and petitioner Khushnoor is stated to be in custody since 22.03.2021.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that a dead body was found under the convert in Ramgarh jungle in Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P, on 19.05.2019. The same in the year 2021 was identified as the body of one Mr. Sandeep S/o Roop Singh, resident of Doda Gate, Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab. It is further the case of prosecution that in the month of December, 2021, an accused was brought to police station Nalagarh, who made a revelation that while he was lodged in Sangroor Jail in some other FIR, one person named Karamjit disclosed to him that he along-with his partner had murdered deceased Sandeep in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the said revelation of the said accused, the investigation was carried out and in the course of the said investigation, both the petitioners

¶19

3

¶20

have been arrested. According, to the prosecution, both the accused as well as the deceased were involved in the business of migration of citizens of India to foreign countries and Sandeep was murdered by the accused on account of some dispute that arose between them, with regard to the distribution of money.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and they have been wrongly implicated in the case. He further submitted that the body of an unidentified person was found in the year 2019 and the petitioners were arrested on the basis of an alleged revelation of one of the accused, whose statement has been taken to be the gospel truth by the prosecution to arrest the petitioners. He further submitted that both the petitioners are in custody for more than three years. He has apprised the Court that after framing of charges, the trial is proceeding at an extremely slow pace, which can be inferred from the fact that out of 45 witnesses that have been cited by the prosecution, only 4 have been examined. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no possibility of the trial being concluded within some reasonable time, the petitioners may be ordered to be released on bail and

¶22

4

¶23

they shall abide by all such conditions that may be imposed upon them, by the Court.

¶24

The bail petitions are opposed by the State. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is both grave and heinous and further as the petitioners are not residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh, there is each and every possibility that if released on bail, they may jump the bail and thus may not be available for the purposes of the trial. He further submitted that the trial is proceeding at a satisfactory pace and, therefore also, the prayer of the petitioners deserves rejection. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also argued that as the statements of the main prosecution witnesses are yet to the recorded, therefore, in these circumstances, if the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, there is each and every possibility that they may try to win over or influence the witnesses which would adversely affect the course of trial.

¶25

In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners again undertake to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of grant of bail to them and they shall also provide local sureties.

¶26

5

¶27

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the record that has been produced for the perusal of the Court as well as status report filed by the State.

¶28

The allegations which have led to the arrest of the petitioners, have already been narrated herein above. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in custody for more than 3 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been arrested on the basis of revelation made by an accused, who stated that one of the accused had made a confession to him in a Jail in Sangroor about the commission of the alleged offence, which has led to their arrest.

¶29

When this case was listed on 27.06.2024, the following order was passed:-

¶30

“Heard for some time. The Court stands informed that the case is now listed for recording the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses on 5th July, 2024. Subject to its roster, learned trial Court is requested that, if possible, it be ensured that dates be given in a quick session for recording the statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses.

¶31

As prayed for, list on 10.07.2024.”

¶32

6

¶33

Today, learned Counsel for the petitioners has apprised the Court that on 05.07.2024, no PW was present before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the matter has now been adjourned for recording the evidence of the witnesses, referred to at Serial No. 2, 8 and 9, for 24.08.2024.

¶34

There is no denial to the fact that the allegation against the petitioners is both grave and heinous, but then, this Court can also not ignore the fact that the petitioners are in custody for more than 3 years now. Whether or not the petitioners are not guilty of the offences alleged against them, of course, is a matter of trial but in view of the speed at which the trial is proceeding, there is no likelihood of trial being concluded shortly. It could not be disputed by the State that out of 45 cited witnesses, statements of only 4 witnesses have been recorded and now the matter has been listed in the month of August for recording the statements of three more witnesses. 12. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3809 of 2024), titled Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, has been pleased to hold that if the State or any prosecuting agency, including the Court concerned

¶35

7

¶36

has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of the accused to have a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India then the State or any prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution of India applies irrespective of the nature of the Crime. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held that this fact should not be lost sight of that the person before the Court is still an accused and not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.

¶37

In the light of what has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above-said judgment and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are in custody for more than three years and there is no possibility of the trial being concluded within a reasonable time, these petitions are allowed with the direction that the petitioners herein are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.29 of 2019, dated 19.06.2019, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the

¶38

8

¶39

India Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘IPC’ for short), at Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan, H.P., subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one local surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court concerned. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:-

¶40

i.) Petitioners shall 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;

¶41

ii.) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

¶42

iii) Petitioners shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶43

iv) Petitioners shall not leave the territory of the Country without prior permission of the learned trial Court .

¶44

It is clarified that the findings, which have been returned by this Court while deciding these petitions, are only

¶45

for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail petitions and learned Trial Court shall not be influenced, in any manner

¶46

9

¶47

whatsoever, by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of these petitions during the course of the trial of the case and the respondent-State shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail in case the petitioners violate any of the conditions of bail. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

¶48

Downloaded copy of this order from the website of this Court shall be valid for compliance.

¶49

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶50

July 10, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)

Harpreet v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet 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

William Vs State of Hp and Others

Sandya Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Dev Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jagdish Chand Vs Bhagi Rath (Deceased through LRs Kamlesh Kumar and Others)

Sanjeev Singh and Others Vs Hrtc and Another

Lokinder Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Ors.