Allowed

Ankush Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Apr 2024CRMPM/96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC in a matrimonial cruelty and dowry death case, directing the release of the petitioner subject to a personal bond and compliance with standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and leaving India.

Ankush Sharma Vs State of Hp — Matrimonial and Divorce | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr.MP(M) No.96 of 2024 Reserved on : 05.04.2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 20.04.2024

¶5

_________________________________________________ Ankush Sharma

¶6

....Petitioner Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶8

…Respondent

¶9

________________________________________________ Coram_

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Ms. Sunaina & Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocates General. ________________________________________________

¶13

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶14

The instant bail application has been filed by the

¶15

petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) for grant of bail in case FIR No.129/2023, dated 21.09.2023, under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the

¶19

status report filed by the respondent/State, are that on 20.09.2023 at around 10.40 p.m., the Medical Officer, CHC Daulatpur telephonically informed the police that one lady Shikha, stated to have consumed poison had been brought to the hospital for treatment. On 21.09.2023 at about 6.40 a.m., she was referred to PGI Chandigarh, but she died on the way at Ropar (Punjab). During the course of investigation, the police recorded statement of the father of deceased Shikha, wherein he stated that his daughter Shikha solemnized Court marriage with Ankush Sharma (petitioner herein) out of her own free will on 02.08.2023 and after the marriage, she never visited her parents nor had any interaction with them. The petitioner as well as his mother, sister and husband of his sister used to torture his daughter physically and mentally and in this regard, she (deceased) also lodged a complaint to the police and she also used to narrate the incidents of cruelty and torture to her God brother Sudanshu. On the basis of his statement, FIR in question was registered.

¶20

¶21

During further investigation of the case, the police obtained post-mortem report of the deceased, prepared the spot map and also recorded statements of the witnesses. The petitioner was arrested on 22.09.2023.

¶22

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the investigation of the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than seven months and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court only on 28.11.2023 and the trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude. He also contended that the coaccused i.e. mother of the petitioner has already been released on bail, as such, the petitioner, who is in custody since his arrest, is required to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶23

¶24

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate

¶25

General has opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

I have given my considered thought to the rival contentions raised and also gone through the police file as well as the status report filed by the prosecution. The perusal of the record reveals that the investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner is presently lodged in the judicial custody since 22.09.2023.

¶27

The law with respect to grant of bail is now well settled. In Sanjay Chandra Vs . Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49 , it has been held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶28

¶29

“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that 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.

¶30

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted 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 this country, 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.

¶31

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a 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 purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”

¶32

8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta Vs . CBI ,

¶33

(2017) 5 SCC 218 , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the decision rendered in Sanjay Chandra’s case (supra) by holding as under:-

¶34

“16. This Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40, also involving an

¶35

¶36

economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that 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 found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. This Court sounded a caveat 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 a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and that grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.”

¶37

Similar reiteration of law can be found in

¶38

Dataram Singh Vs . State of Uttar Pradesh & Another ,

¶39

(2018) 3 SCC 22 , wherein it has been held that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty and the grant of

¶40

bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a

¶41

¶42

prison or in a correction home is an exception. Relevant

¶43

portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

¶44

“1. 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.

¶45

4. 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.”

¶46

In the case in hand, the perusal of the

¶47

investigation reveals that deceased Shikha had solemnized

¶48

Court marriage with petitioner/accused Ankush Sharma as

¶49

per her own free will on 02.08.2023. After solemnizing the marriage, the deceased neither visited the house of her

¶50

¶51

parents nor she had any interaction with any of them since her marriage. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted with the alleged history of poisoning and the Medical Officer had initially given his opinion that the deceased had died due to consumption of some unknown poison leading to sudden cardiac respiratory arrest. Thereafter, the viscera and blood samples of the deceased were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala and in the report, it has been mentioned that no poison could be detected in the contents of the exhibits. The relevant portion of RFSL report reads as under:-

¶52

“No poison and ethyl alcohol could be detected in the contents of exhibits P/1, P/2, P/3 and P/4.”

¶53

Subsequently, final opinion of the Medical Officer

¶54

was obtained by the investigating agency, in which, he has given his final opinion as under:-

¶55

“In my opinion & as per H/O patient died due to some unknown poisoning. Patient went to sudden cardiac respiratory arrest. Post mortem done of the deceased with alleged history of poisoning the deceased died due to cardiopulmonary arrest, however, the RFSL report does not show any poison.”

¶56

¶57

Therefore, the investigation prima facie reveals that the deceased had died due to cardio pulmonary arrest and no poison was detected in the viscera and blood samples of the deceased, which were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala. Hence, prima facie, the possibility of consumption/ administration of poison is ruled out. The investigation of the case is now complete and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.09.2023. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty, therefore, in such background of the case, the complicity, if any, of the accused is yet to be established and there is no reason to let him incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, particularly when the charge-sheet in the case has been filed before the trial Court only on 28.11.2023 and the trial may take a sufficiently long time to conclude. Moreover, co-accused, i.e. mother of the petitioner, has already been enlarged on bail. The prosecution has failed to produce any material on record to suggest that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence or will flee

¶58

¶59

from justice on being enlarged on bail as he permanent resident of District Una.

¶60

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No.129/2023, dated 21.09.2023, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 498-A & 306 of IPC and presently lodged

¶61

in District Jail, Una, H.P., shall be forthwith released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The bail order

¶62

is, however, subject to the following conditions:-

¶63

(i) that the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required ;

¶64

(ii) that he will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

¶65

(iii) that he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor he will try to win over the prosecution witnesses or terrorise them in any manner;

¶66

¶67

(iv) that he will not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation or the trial of the case.

¶68

(v) that he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

¶69

Needless to say that the Investigating agency

¶70

shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of the bail, if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the petitioner.

¶71

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.

¶72

The Registry is directed to forward a soft copy of

¶73

the bail order to the Superintendent Jail, District Jail Una, H.P., through e-mail, with a direction to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prison software.

¶74

In case, the petitioner is not released within a

¶75

period of seven days from the date of grant of bail, the Superintendent Jail, District Jail Una, H.P., is directed to

¶76

inform this fact to the Secretary, DLSA, Una and if the petitioner fails to furnish the bail bonds, as per the order

¶77

¶78

passed by this Court, within a period of one month from

¶79

today, then, the said fact be submitted to this Court.

¶80

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶81

April 20, 2024 (VH)

¶82

Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADUR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU =HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e2898117bf VIRENDER a738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b84983689d0 27cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADUR Reason: I am approving this document BAHADUR Location: Date: 2024.04.20 15:57:40+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0

Ankush Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Sharma 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

Amit Pradeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Neel Dhiman Vs State of Hp

Kewal Singh Vs State of Hp

Ajay Kumar Vs Harjot Singh Sehgal

Anju Kumari Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jagdish Chand Vs Priyanka Sharma