Dismissed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2024CRMPM/1220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a bail petition filed by Suresh Kumar. Considering the petitioner's criminal antecedents, his intimidation of the victim, and the prima facie satisfaction against charges including molestation, the court held that releasing him would not serve the interest of a fair trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition for grant of regular bail dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp — Bail and Remand | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:4326 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MP (M) No. 1220 of 2024 Reserved on: 25.06.2024 Date of Decision: 03.07.2024.

¶4

Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶7

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State	: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria,
	Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition for the grant of regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 108 of 2024, dated 6.04.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He has no role to play in the commission

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

¶13

of the crime. The investigation is complete and the police have filed the final report before the Court. One FIR was lodged on the false allegations made by the victim’s sister. The petitioner runs a shop in the vicinity of the victim’s house. He wanted to install CCTV cameras. The victim and her sister objected to the same. They threatened the petitioner. He made a complaint to the Dy.SP, Una after which the victim also filed a complaint against him. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He is a local resident and there are no chances of his absconding. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

¶14

The petition was opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police asserting that on 6.4.2024, at about 1.00 PM, two boys came to her shop. The victim was dealing in sales. The boys asked the victim to show the mattresses and bed. She took them to the godown. One boy called someone on the telephone and said that the victim was the same girl. Suresh Kumar reached the spot and said that she had deposed against him in a case filed by Meenakshi. He would kill her. He abused her and tried to catch hold of her. The victim ran away to her office. The accused

¶15

¶16

entered the office. He caught hold of the victim and slapped her. He also touched her inappropriately. He went out of the office and asked the other two boys to put the victim in the vehicle. The boys were preparing the victim to take her in the vehicle when the victim’s mother reached the spot and the accused and other persons ran away after seeing her. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The accused is involved in the commission of various offences and ten FIRs have been registered against him, out of which he has been acquitted in five FIRs. The accused is harassing the victim and her family members. He also possesses an illegal revolver, which he has concealed. Hence, the status report.

¶17

I have heard Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

¶18

Mr. Lakshay Parihar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is enmity between the victim and the accused. The accused had filed an application against victim’s family members after which the victim’s sister filed a complaint

¶19

¶20

against the accused. The accused would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

¶21

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of similar offences previously. The FIR was lodged by the victim’s sister against the petitioner. He had threatened the victim because she had deposed in that FIR against him. This conduct of the petitioner shows that he can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶22

I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶23

The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein it was observed as under:-

¶24

“ 12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of

¶25

¶26

course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

¶27

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

¶28

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

¶29

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

¶30

(d) Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

¶31

13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts has been explained in the following words:

¶32

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the

¶33

¶34

case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

¶35

( a ) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

¶36

( b ) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

¶37

( c ) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 ] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124 ].)”

¶38

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs

¶39

Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

¶40

7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the relevant principles were restated thus:

¶41

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of

¶42

¶43

this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

¶44

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

¶45

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

It was specifically stated in the FIR that the petitioner

¶53

threatened the victim because she had deposed against him in another case. This corroborates the submission of Mr Lokender

¶54

Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State that the petitioner can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore, the release of the petitioner on bail will not be in the interest of fair trial.

¶55

The victim specifically stated that the petitioner threatened her and asked the persons accompanying him to take

¶56

¶57

the victim with them in a vehicle. He had also touched the victim inappropriately. These allegations show the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶58

It was submitted that the petitioner had filed a complaint against the family members of the victim on 9.2.2024 after which the FIR was lodged against him. It is not shown that any action was taken against the family members of the victim based on the complaint made by the petitioner. The enmity is a double-edged sword — while it furnishes a motive for false implication, it also furnishes a motive for the commission of crime. Therefore, not much advantage can be derived from the complaint filed by the petitioner against the victim’s family members.

¶59

The status report shows that many FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner. This report shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.

¶60

The law regarding the relevance of the criminal history of the accused while considering the bail application was

¶61

¶62

considered by this Court exhaustively in Prem Singh vs. State of H.P. 2020 (1) Shim. L.C. 476 , wherein it was observed:

¶63

“9. In Ravinder Singh @ Ravi Pavar v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 12 SCC 446 , Supreme Court observed,

¶64

"24. In para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit, the State has highlighted that A-2 is a "habitual offender" and there are 22 cases pending against him in various police stations. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that during the period while he was granted temporary bail by the High Court, he indulged in an offence of theft and a case was registered against him vide I-C.R. No. 92 of 2011 under Section 379 of IPC by the Vasad Police Station for which he was arrested on 10.08.2011 and later enlarged on bail. It is also brought to our notice that respondent A-2, while on regular bail, was arrested on 13.09.2012 in Vadodara city in connection with Javaharnagar Police Station crime registered vide I- C.R. No. 94 of 2012 under Sections 407, 408 and 120B and later on he was released on bail.

¶65

Taking note of all these aspects, his antecedents, the gravity and nature of the offence, loss of human lives, the impact on the social fabric of the society, and his continuous involvement in criminal activities while on bail, we are satisfied that respondent (A-2) does not deserve to continue to remain on bail."

¶66

In State of Maharashtra v. Pappu @ Suresh Budharmal Kalani, (2014) 11 SCC 244 , the Supreme Court holds,

¶67

"14. It is not in dispute that in spite of being acquitted in some of the cases, still there are 15 cases in which a trial is pending against the respondent, out of which two cases are under Sections 302 read with 120B, IPC. In the present case also, initially along with charges under Sections 302/120B, IPC offences

¶68

¶69

punishable under TADA were also charged against the respondent but later on, the TADA charges were withdrawn. Though we are not inclined to go into the matter in detail at present to interfere in the order passed by the High Court, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to interfere and cancel the bail granted by the High Court."

¶70

In Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu v. State of Bihar, (2016) 9 SCC 443 , the Supreme Court holds,

¶71

"13. On a careful perusal of the records of the case and considering all the aspects of the matter in question and having regard to the proved charges in the concerned cases, and the charges pending adjudication against the respondent-accused and further balancing the considerations of individual liberty and societal interest as well as the prescriptions and the perception of law regarding bail, it appears to us that the High Court has erred in granting bail to the respondent accused without taking into consideration the overall facts otherwise having a bearing on the exercise of its discretion on the issue.

¶72

Judged on the entire conspectus of the attendant facts and circumstances and considering the stage of the present case before the trial court where the charge sheet has already been submitted, together with pending proceedings against the respondentaccused as on date, and his recorded antecedents in the various decisions of this Court, we are thus unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court granting bail to him."

¶73

In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422 , the Supreme Court, rejected the bail granted by the High Court, by holding as follows,

¶74

"9. On a perusal of the aforesaid list, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 2 is a history-sheeter and is in-

¶75

¶76

volved in heinous offences. Having stated the facts and noting the nature of involvement of the accused in the crimes in question, there can be no scintilla of doubt to name him a "history-sheeter". The question, therefore, arises whether in these circumstances, should the High Court have enlarged him on bail on the foundation of parity.

¶77

In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , it has been clearly laid down that the grant of bail though involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of discretion has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The heinous nature of crimes warrants more caution as there is a greater chance of rejection of bail though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. In the said case, reference was made to Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , and thereafter the court proceeded to state the following principles:-

¶78

"(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations but the severity of the punishment if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.

¶79

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

¶80

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

¶81

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in

¶82

¶83

the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."

¶84

It is a well-settled principle of law that while dealing with an application for a grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of the accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for the apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. [See Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 ]

¶85

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , while dealing with the court's role to interfere with the power of the High Court to grant bail to the accused, the Court observed that it is to be seen that the High Court has exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors: -

¶86

"9. ... among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

¶87

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

¶88

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶89

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

¶90

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

¶91

¶92

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

¶93

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶94

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

¶95

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

¶96

We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases does not retain an individual character. It, on occasion and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society, which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to society; and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus: -

¶97

"Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion, as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be

¶98

¶99

placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters [ Alfred Howard, The Beauties of Burke (T. Davison, London) 109 ]."

¶100

Therefore, it is apparent from the judgment of this Court as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the criminal antecedents are important factors that cannot be ignored while deciding the bail application.

¶101

In the present case, the petitioner had intimidated the victim because of her statement made in the previous case. This circumstance and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail.

¶102

In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶103

The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶104

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶105

3^rd July, 2024 (Chander)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Julka and Another Vs Krishnawati and Others

Sonu Kumar Vs State of Hp.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Surender Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Sethi Lal Vs State of H.P.

Surjeet Negi Vs Kuldeep Negi