Allowed

Manish Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Sept 2024CRMPM/1950/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court confirmed interim bail for three petitioners accused of assault and attempted murder under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court held that since petitioners joined the investigation and no evidence remained to be recovered, indefinite incarceration was unjustified pending trial, imposing strict bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one local surety and compliance with specific conditions regarding interrogation, trial attendance, and prohibition from le

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MP (M) No. 1948 a/w Cr.MP (M) No.1949 and 1950 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 06.09.2024

¶4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Cr. MP (M) No. 1948 of 2024 Govind Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _____________________________________________________ 2. Cr. MP (M) No. 1949 of 2024 Vinay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent 3. Cr. MP (M) No. 1950 of 2024 Manish Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _____________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Rathor, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Sequel to order dated 03.09.2024, whereby bail

¶5

petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event

¶6

of their arrest in case FIR No.156 of 2024, dated 22.08.2024, under Sections 333, 332 (C), 115(2), 127(1), 351(2), 508(3) and

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, registered at police Station, Balh, District Mandi H.P., respondent-State has filed status report and HC Ramchander has come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned.

¶10

Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 22.08.2024, complainant Lekh Ram got his statement recorded under Section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, alleging therein that on 22.08.2024, at about 6.00 PM, a car bearing registration No.HP-82A-3269 came in front of his shop. He alleged that four persons alighted from the said car and one of them was carrying axe in his hand. He alleged that all the four persons started demanding money, but when he objected to the same, they started quarreling with him. He alleged that his land owner namely, Sh. Jitender Kumar tried to pacify both the parties, but accused also gave beatings to him. However, they both were saved by shopkeepers, namely Kundan Saini, Ashok Thakur, Ishwar Dass and Sher Singh. He alleged that on account of beatings given by the accused, named in the FIR, person, namely Jitender Kumar suffered multiple injuries. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioners. However, before they could be arrested, they approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail. Vide order dated 03.09.2024, this Court ordered to enlarge bail

¶11

¶12

petitioners on bail, subject to their joining investigation. Since bail petitioners have already joined the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from them, prayer has been made on their behalf for confirmation of bail granted vide order dated 03.09.2024.

¶13

While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to joining of investigation by the bail petitioners, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency. He states that though no serious injury was received by the victim in the alleged incident, but having taken note of the fact that one of the co-accused was carrying axe in his hand, this Court can safely presume that accused had come on the spot with an intention to kill complainant. He states that in the event of petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities and as such, interim bail granted to them vide order dated 03.09.2024 may not be confirmed, rather same be rejected.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident bail petitioners unauthorizedly entered into the shop of the complainant, namely Lekh Ram and thereafter started demanding money, but when such act of them was

¶15

¶16

objected by the complainant, they gave him beatings. Petitioners also gave beatings to Jitender Kumar, as result of which, he suffered injuries on his neck, as has been reflected in MLC adduced on record. Though, having taken note of aforesaid fact, as has been recorded hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioners have joined investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from them, coupled with the fact that victim Jitender Kumar, who suffered simple injuries, is out of danger, there appears to be no justification to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioners for indefinite period during trial. Though, admittedly bail petitioners have committed heinous crime punishable under sections 333, 332 (C), 115(2), 127(1), 351(2), 508(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, but guilt, if any, of them is yet to be established on record and as such, incarceration, if any, of petitioners in jail during trial, would amount to pr- trial conviction, which otherwise not permissible under law.

¶17

Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be

¶18

¶19

established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to send the bail petitioners behind the bars for indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from them. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioners to stringent conditions.

¶20

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

¶21

5 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

¶22

2. 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.

¶23

¶24

3. 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.

¶25

4. 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 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 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶26

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 of Article 21 of 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

¶27

Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:-

¶32

“ 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.”

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Consequently, in view of the above, order dated

¶46

03.09.2024 passed by this Court is made absolute, subject to petitioners furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/each with one local surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

¶47

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;

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty

¶53

or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

¶54

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. The bail petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶55

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶56

September 06, 2024 (shankar)

Manish Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Pappy Vs State of Hp

Rohan Kumar and Others Vs the MD Hpptcl

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Mohinder Singh

Man Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dev Prakash and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

SP Singh Vs Kishna Ram