Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 28.03.2025 vs State Of H.P on 8 April, 2025
2025:HHC:9554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 208 of 2025
Reserved on: 28.03.2025
Date of Decision: 08.04.2025
Dinesh Kumar …Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. …Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deeksha Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant
of regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was
arrested for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 302, 392, 342, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short “IPC“) registered vide FIR No. 18/2022, dated 02.02.2022, at
Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Page |2
2025:HHC:9554
police have completed the investigations and filed the charge
sheet before the Court. The custody of the petitioner is not
required. There is no eye witness of the incident and the
prosecution’s case rests entirely on circumstantial and hearsay
evidence. The forensic report does not connect the petitioner to
the incident. The DNA sample collected during the investigation
does not match the petitioner’s DNA. There is substantial doubt
regarding the petitioner’s involvement in the incident. The police
recovered a tie lock, a tape roll, and scissors on February 11, 2022,
11 days after the incident. This discovery is highly improbable, as
it is unlikely that the petitioner would have kept incriminating
articles with him. The police asserted that they recovered the
Aadhaar card of the petitioner and the deceased-Geeta from the
residence of Pavender Singh. They (police) further claimed that
the petitioner had sold a gold ring belonging to the deceased to
Jeweller Chandan Verma and provided him with a photocopy of
the petitioner’s Aadhaar card. However, this assertion is
contradicted by the prosecution case, which states that the
Aadhaar card was found in the room of Pavender Singh. There is
no evidence to suggest that the jeweller transferred the amount
to the petitioner’s account. The petitioner is a Driver by
Page |3
2025:HHC:9554
profession. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. He would
abide by the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose.
Hence, the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report
asserting that the police received information regarding the
recovery of two bundles containing the dead bodies of two
women. The police registered the First Information Report (FIR)
and conducted an investigation. The women were subsequently
identified as Geeta and Nisha, residents of Zirakpur. The police
obtained the call detail records and discovered that Bhupender
was in contact with Geeta. The police interrogated Bhupender
Singh, who revealed that his friend Akash Deep had taken them
in his vehicle bearing registration No. PB-01B-6562 to Kharar.
The police conducted an interrogation with Akash Deep, who
identified the women as the passengers who were taken by him
in his vehicle. Subsequently, the police examined the CCTV
footage and discovered that a vehicle with the registration
number HR-03N-3403 was moving suspiciously on the
intervening night of January 30-31, 2022. The police conducted
an investigation with the Tata Agency, Phase-II, Industrial Area,
which revealed that the vehicle was purchased by Manpreet
Page |4
2025:HHC:9554
Singh. Manpreet Singh subsequently informed the police that he
had sold the vehicle to Ajay Gautam. Ajay Gautam further
disclosed that he had sold the vehicle to Sukhbir. Sukhbir, in
turn, revealed that he had sold the vehicle to Jitender Pal some
months prior to the incident. Consequently, the police
apprehended Jitender Pal and conducted a search of his vehicle.
During the search, the police recovered 13 tie locks, tape rolls,
and scissors from the vehicle’s dicky, which were similar to the
articles utilized for securing the deceased bodies. Additionally,
the police searched the residence of Parvinder Singh and
discovered the Aadhaar cards of the petitioner and Geeta. The
police also retrieved various articles from the room.
Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested, and he confessed to
selling the ring of the deceased to Chandan Verma Jeweller for ₹
6,800. ₹ 4,800 was subsequently transferred to the petitioner’s
account, while ₹ 2,000 was paid in cash. A call detail record of the
petitioner and Jitender Pal revealed that they were in
communication with one another on the night of the incident.
The police filed the charge sheet before the Court. Statements of
five witnesses have been recorded, and one witness has been
given up. The matter is now listed for recording the statements
Page |5
2025:HHC:9554
of prosecution witnesses on May 15, 2025, before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional
Advocate General for respondent/State.
4. Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was
falsely implicated. The evidence collected by the prosecution is
inherently improbable and does not establish a connection
between the petitioner and the commission of a crime. The
petitioner has been in custody since February 11, 2022. The
prosecution has only examined five witnesses. The delay in the
conclusion of the trial warrants the petitioner’s release on bail
due to the violation of his right to a speedy trial. Therefore, she
prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner’s
Aadhaar card was found in the room of Parvinder. He had sold
the ring of the deceased to a jeweller and was in touch with the
co-accused and the deceased. These circumstances sufficiently
Page |6
2025:HHC:9554
establish the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of
a crime. The petitioner has committed a heinous crime
punishable by capital punishment. Considering the gravity of the
offence, the petitioner should not be released on bail. Therefore,
he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed at page 783: –
“Relevant parameters for granting bail
26. While considering whether bail ought to be granted in
a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court
must consider relevant factors like the nature of the
accusations made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused,
the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if
the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the
accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing
the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC
(Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004
SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of
U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta
Page |7
2025:HHC:9554Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC
(Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil
Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3
SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of
M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as
under:-
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the
accused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any
conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly
related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77
observed that though the competent court is empowered
to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the
grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the
discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to
facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence
of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is
not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the
witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant
observations are extracted herein below:
“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses
the expression “any condition … otherwise in the
interest of justice” has been construed in several
decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is
empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any
condition” for the grant of bail under
Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the
administration of justice, secure the presence of the
accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not
Page |8
2025:HHC:9554misused to impede the investigation, overawe the
witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several
decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the
conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in
the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis
supplied)
13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570,
this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the
Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and
observed in the following terms:–
“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on
a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to
impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a
reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in
the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and
should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the
view that the present facts and circumstances of the
case do not warrant such extreme condition to be
imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)
14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2021) 2 SCC 779, laid down the factors to be taken into
consideration while deciding the bail application and
observed:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the
realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to
grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail,
depending on the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail are the nature of
the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied
upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to
the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
Page |9
2025:HHC:9554time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character,
behaviour and standing of the accused; and the
circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger
interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction
to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as
a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant,
and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied)
9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmed versus
State of U.P, 2025 SCC Online SC 479.
10. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. The prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial
evidence. The petitioner was found in contact with the deceased,
and the mobile phone of deceased-Nisha was discovered in his
possession. He had sold the ring of deceased-Geeta to Chandan
Jeweller and his Aadhar card was found in the room from which
the Aadhar card of deceased-Geeta was found. The report of the
forensic science laboratory indicates that the DNA of deceased
Nisha was found on the bedsheet, while the DNA of deceased
Geeta was found in the quilt recovered from the room. These
circumstances suggest that the petitioner was last seen with
deceased Geeta and Nisha, he had articles belonging to both
deceased individuals and he was in contact with the deceased
P a g e | 10
2025:HHC:9554
Nisha on the night of the incident. These circumstantial evidence
prima facie establishes the petitioner’s involvement in the
commission of a crime.
12. It was submitted that the DNA of the petitioner was
not found in the objects retrieved from the room. However, this
fact is inconsequential because his Aadhaar card was found in the
room, indicating his presence there. The discovery of the DNA of
the deceased in the bed sheet and the quilt further corroborates
their presence in the same room. Therefore, it can be inferred
that the deceased and the petitioner were present together in the
same room.
13. It was submitted that, according to the prosecution,
the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner was found in the room, and he
had also handed over copies of the Aadhaar Card to the jeweller at
the time of the sale of the ring, which is inherently improbable.
This submission cannot be accepted. The petitioner had only
handed over the photocopy of the Aadhaar Card to the jeweller
and not the Aadhaar Card itself. An individual can possess
multiple photocopies of their Aadhaar Card, and the mere fact
that the Aadhaar Card was found at another location does not
P a g e | 11
2025:HHC:9554
disprove the possibility that the petitioner submitted the
Aadhaar Card to another person. Consequently, this
circumstance does not raise any doubts regarding the validity of
the prosecution case.
14. Thus there is prime facie sufficient material to
connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence
punishable under Section 302 inter alia. The offence is heinous
and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the
gravity of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve to be
released on bail.
15. It was submitted that the petitioner has been in
custody for approximately three years, and his right to a speedy
trial is being violated. This submission cannot be accepted in the
absence of copies of the order sheet demonstrating that the delay
is attributable to the prosecution and not to the petitioner.
Consequently, the petitioner cannot assert a claim for release on
bail due to the violation of his right to a speedy trial.
Additionally, the status report indicates that five witnesses have
been examined, and one witness has been given up by the
prosecution. This clearly indicates that the trial is progressing at
P a g e | 12
2025:HHC:9554
a normal pace. However, the petitioner can approach the Court if
it is discovered that there is a delay in the progress of the trial
due to circumstances not attributable to him.
16. No other point was urged.
17. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
18. The observations made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,
whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
8th April, 2025
(Ritu)
[ad_1]
Source link