Allowed

Manmeet Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2024CRMPM/2399/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder and conspiracy case where the applicant had been in judicial custody since October 2016. With most examined prosecution witnesses hostile and trial progressing slowly despite earlier directions, the court held continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment and allowed bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions of attendance, non-tampering, and no inducement to witnesses.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr.M.P(M) No. 2399 of 2023 Reserved on: 20.11.2023. Decided on: 1^st January, 2024 Manmeet Singh .......Applicant

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P. ...Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the applicant: Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G with Ms. Leena Guleria, Dy. A.G.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge.

¶9

By way of present application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), applicant-Manmeet Singh has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of trial, in case FIR No. 79 of 2016, dated 9^th September, 2016, registered with Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

According to the applicant, he is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated, in the present case. According to him, he has nothing to do with the offences, for which, he has been arrested by the police.

¶13

According to the applicant, the charges, in this case, were framed and he is in judicial custody for the last seven years. The chances of conclusion of trial, in near future, according to the applicant, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in the judicial custody for indefinite period.

¶14

The applicant has earlier tried his luck before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., by filing a bail application, however, the said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.05.2020.

¶15

The applicant has also tried his luck by moving bail application before this Court, bearing Cr.M.P(M) No. 1495 of 2021, however, the said application was withdrawn on 30.09.2021.

¶16

The relief of bail has been sought mainly the ground of delayed trial on account of the fact that most of the

¶17

¶18

witnesses examined by the prosecution, till date, have turned hostile.

¶19

On the basis of above facts, Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has given, certain undertakings, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

¶20

When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein , that on 09.09.2016, complainant Mohan Singh son of Amar Singh got recorded his statement, under Section 154 Cr.P.C, disclosing therein, that he is working in the Public Works Department, Sub Division, Kandaghat and he was deputed to repair the roads of Public Works Department falling within Kandaghat Sub Division. On 07.09.2016, he was posted on Kayari Moar to Kawarg link road. He used to commute on foot. On 09.09.2016, when he was on the way to attend his duties and at about 9.00 a.m. when, he reached Kayari Moar to Kawarg link road at zero point, then, he noticed a person lying dead. According to him, he has suspicion that some unknown person had killed him.

¶21

¶22

7.1. During investigation, police inspected the spot. The police took into possession dead body along-with blood samples, stones, soil from the spot. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted and viscera was preserved.

¶23

7.2. On 17-09-2016, the dead body was identified to be of Happy Kumar S/o Rattan Lal, R/o of Amritsar by his father and dead body was given to father for cremation. On further investigation at Amritsar, cases bearing FIR No. 61/08, U/s 341, 323, 34 IPC, FIR No. 60/14 under Section 22 of NDPS Act and FIR No. 101/12 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 382, 307, 148 IPC have been found to be registered against deceased Happy. It was found that deceased was of criminal nature and belongs to criminal group.

¶24

7.3. On further investigation, it was found that another case FIR No. 77/16, under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act was registered in Police Station, Amritsar on 27-05-2016. On perusal of CCTV footage, person firing on Surinder Singh resembles with Happy Kumar, deceased.

¶25

7.4. On 16-10-2016, information was received from Amritsar that Amritsar police had arrested Sushil Kumar and Manmeet Singh (applicant) in case FIR No. 77/16, under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. It was disclosed

¶26

¶27

by accused Sushil and applicant Manmeet there that they had killed Happy Kumar in Himachal Pradesh, as such, both the accused persons were arrested, in the present case.

¶28

7.5. During police custody on 27-10-2016, they identified the place of incident. On 28-10-2016, they made statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of statement on their identification an iron Datar (weapon of offence), white bag. T-shirt, piece of vest and handkerchief were recovered from bushes below road near Hotel Adventure on NH-05 near Deu-chowki. The police also took into possession vehicle bearing No. PB-02CQ-1060 used in the offence and report from Parwanoo barrier and Toll Plaza, Chandi Mandir regarding entry and exit of vehicle. Postmortem report of deceased Happy shows that he died due to Hemorrhagic shock secondary to multiple injuries inflicted on his head and neck.

¶29

7.6. After the investigation, police came to the conclusion that Mandeep Singh, in connivance with Sushil Kumar, Manmeet Singh (applicant) had conspired to kill his father Surinder Singh and, as such, hired services of Happy for Rs.5 Lakh. Accused Mandeep on 26-05-2016 had given

¶30

¶31

the revolver of his father and the cartridges to Sushil for being

¶32

given to Happy.

¶33

7.7. On 27-05-2016, at 8:30 p.m, when Surinder Kumar had parked his vehicle in the parking of hospital on safety road, Amritsar, Happy Kumar fired at said Surinder Kumar who died in the hospital. After incident, Happy Kumar returned the revolver and remaining cartridges to Sushil and Mandeep had given Rs.2 Lakh to Happy through Sushil and in that regard, case under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act was registered in P.S. Amritsar vide FIR No. 77/2016. Thereafter, Happy Kumar started blackmailing Mandeep and Sushil for his remaining amount, as such, Mandeep, Sushil and Manmeet (applicant) had connived to Kill Happy Kumar. They had taken the vehicle from Sukhcharan Singh and taken Happy to Himachal Pradesh, for that purpose, on 08 09-2016 at 7:30 p.m. They had given Happy sleeping pills in drink.

¶34

7.8. On 09-09-2016 at 4:00 am, at zero point applicant Manmeet killed Happy by inflicting injuries on his head and neck with Datar and thereafter, had thrown the weapon of offence and blood stained clothes at a distance of 2 k.m on NH-05 towards Solan and returned to Amritsar. The police filed challan against accused Sushil and Manmeet (applicant)

¶35

¶36

for having committed offence under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC.

¶37

7.9. Earlier, accused Mandeep had absconded and was arrested on 30-01-2017 and, then, supplementary challan was filed against him.

¶38

7.10. In the status report, it has been apprehended that that applicant Manmeet has committed a heinous offence, he is a resident of the place, outside the State, many cases have been registered against him and the case is under adjudication before this Court and if, he is released on bail, he may intimidate the witnesses and may abscond.

¶39

According to the further stand of the police there are 52 witnesses, out of which, 21 witnesses have been examined and remaining 31 witnesses are yet to be examined. 9. It is further case of the police that during the pendency of the trial, accused Sushil and Mandeep had expired.

¶40

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.

¶41

In this case, record the learned trial Court has been summoned and retained.

¶42

¶43

Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was arrested on 26.10.2016. On that day, applicant Manmeet Singh and Suresh Kumar were remanded to police custody. From that day, the applicant is in judicial custody.

¶44

As per case of the prosecution, there are 52 witnesses and charges, in this case, were framed by the learned trial Court on 27.12.2017.

¶45

It is no longer res-intergra that the speedy trial is the right of the accused, which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and others versus R.S. Nayak and another, reported in (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 225, Raj Deo Sharma versus State of Bihar, reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 507, Dharmendra Kirthal versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 368, Hussain and another versus Union of India, reported in (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 702 and Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 713.

¶46

¶47

The applicant had earlier filed the application for bail, bearing Cr.M.P(M) No. 1495 of 2021, in which, this Court had passed the following order:-

¶48

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time seeks liberty to withdraw the present petition. He further states that as the petitioner is behind the bars since 2016 and it has been disclosed to this Court that 13 witnesses are yet to be examined and most of them are police witnesses, the trial may be expedited.

¶49

2. This Court finds that as the petitioner is behind the bars since last approximately 5 years and he has every right for speeding up of the trial. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the trial at the earliest possible and if possible prosecution witnesses be examined at the earliest.

¶50

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

¶51

Despite the said orders, only one PW has been examined, that too, on 16.09.2023. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the chances of conclusion of trial against the applicant, in near future, are not so bright. He cannot be kept in judicial custody for indefinite period, as, pre-trial punishment is prohibited under the law.

¶52

So far as the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the police are concerned, the reasonable

¶53

¶54

conditions could be imposed, in case, bail application is allowed.

¶55

Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

¶56

The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in case in case FIR No. 79 of 2016, dated 9^th September, 2016, registered with Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, on his furnishing personal bail bond, in the sum of ₹1,00,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶57

a) He shall make himself 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;

¶58

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

¶59

c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of

¶60

¶61

the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

¶62

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

¶63

Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall

¶64

not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application.

¶65

It is made clear that the respondent-State is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found to be violated by the applicant.

¶66

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of the bail order to the Superintendent of Jail, Solan through e- mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

¶67

In case, the applicant is not released within a period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent of Jail, Solan is directed to inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Solan. The Superintendent of Jail, Solan is further directed that if the applicant fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order passed by this Court, within

¶68

¶69

a period of one month from today, then, the said fact be

¶70

submitted to this Court.

¶71