Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 27.01.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 30 January, 2025
2025:HHC:3014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP(M) No. 2765 of 2024
Reserved on: 27.01.2025
Date of Decision: 31.01.2025.
Vinay Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioner has filed the present petition for
seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was
arrested vide FIR No. 56 of 2024, dated 01.04.2024, registered at
Police Station, West, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
202, 120-B, 452, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 342, and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(V) of Schedule Castes
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2025:HHC:3014
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter
referred to as SC&ST Act). The FIR was lodged on distorted facts
and no such incident occurred. The police arrested seven
persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was remanded
to judicial custody by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-II, Shimla and he is in judicial custody in District
Jail, Shimla (Kaithu). The police filed a charge sheet before the
competent Court. The names of certain other persons were
included after the investigation. The newly added persons
applied for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The role attributed to the petitioner is similar to
the role attributed to the persons enlarged on bail by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Eye witnesses had not named the
petitioner. The petitioner was employed as an outsourced
employee in the department of I&PH and he lost his job after his
arrest. His parents are suffering from various ailments and there
is no person to look after them. The petitioner would abide by all
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 informant made a complaint to the police on
3
2025:HHC:3014
1.4.2024 stating that her son Tikkam Chand alias Nittu (since
deceased) was working as a labourer in the house of Sewa Nand
in Village Khalyar. Prabha Devi, wife of Sewa Nand, called the
informant on 22.3.2024 and told her that Tikkam Chand had
fallen. Sewa Nand also called her and told her that Tikkam
Chand had died due to a fall. The informant was coming to her
home on a bus. She asked Sewa Nand that she would call after
getting off the bus. However, she could not call him back as she
was unable to locate the mobile number of Sewa Nand. She told
her other son Med Ram about the call. The police also called her
and inquired whether she had authorized any person to cremate
the dead body to which she replied in negative. Med Ram and
informant went to the village and found that the dead body was
cremated by the villagers. His ash was handed over to him (Med
Ram) with ₹5,000/-. The informant subsequently discovered
that Tikkam Chand had committed a theft in a temple and the
villagers had beaten him to death. The police registered the FIR.
It was found that a call was received in Police Post Jutogh on
21.3.2024 that police should contact Rajiv Sharma. The police
called Rajiv Sharma, who said that one person had lit a fire near
the temple. He was a thief and heavily intoxicated. He was being
4
2025:HHC:3014
taken to the police post. The police waited for the person but
nobody came to the police post. The police again contacted Rajiv
Sharma in the morning and he said that the person was sent to
his home. Tikkam Chand was found dead at a distance of 60-70
mtrs. from the temple. His dead body was seen by Tara Chand.
Tara Chand informed other villagers, who were present near
Sheetla Mata Temple about the death of Tikkam Chand. The
villagers gathered in the house of Jagdish Chand. He called
Pradhan Anjana Thakur, Up-Pradhan Rajinder and other
members of the Panchayat. The villagers informed the Member
of the Panchayat about the arson and theft committed by
Tikkam Chand. They also told that Tikkam Chand was sent to his
home. He was heavily intoxicated and he fell in a state of
intoxication. Forensic experts inspected the spot and preserved
the samples. The police went to the spot and seized the remains
of the dead body. Rahul made a statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., stating that Umesh Kumar had dragged him (Rahul) out
of his home and taken him to Sheetla Mata Temple. Umesh, Tara
Chand and Rajiv Sharma gave beatings to Rahul and Tikkam
Chand. The call details were also checked and the persons were
found in touch with each other during the night and in the
5
2025:HHC:3014
morning. Rajiv Sharma, petitioner Vinay Sharma, Ashish and
Hemant saw that Sheetla Mata Temple was put on fire on
21.9.2024 at 10.30 PM. They went to the temple and found
Tikkam Chand putting the temple on fire. Rajiv Sharma
informed the police about this fact. Rajiv Sharma told Tara
Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Ram Lal, Rajesh, Jagdish Harish
etc. about the incident. They reached the temple and gave
beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tikkam revealed that Rahul was also
involved in the theft. He was brought from his home by Ram Lal,
Umesh, Bhanu, Nikhilesh, Nikhil, Nitin, Lakshay and Jagdish
Chand. They gave beatings to Rahul. Rahul also saw Tikkam
Chand lying on the floor. His head and face were bleeding. Rajiv,
Hemant, Ashish, petitioner Vinay, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram,
Shankar Lal, Harish and Sushil were present and gave beatings
to Rahul and Tikkam Chand. The villagers also took their
photographs and prepared the video. Subsequently, Tikkam
Chand died and his dead body was burnt. The police arrested
petitioner Vinay, Ashish, Shankar Lal, Geeta Ram, Rajiv Sharma
and Tara Chand. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer,
Tikkam Chand could have died due to beating with a stick
recovered by the police. It was found that the deceased belonged
6
2025:HHC:3014
to a Scheduled Castes; hence Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act,
was added. As per the investigation conducted by the police, the
petitioner Vinay Sharma, Hemant, Rajiv and Ashish reached the
complex of Sheetla Mata Temple on 21.3.2024 after noticing the
fire. They caught hold of Tikam Chand. Rajiv Sharma informed
the police about the apprehension of the theft. Accused Tara
Chand, Shankar Lal and Geeta Ram reached thereafter. All seven
persons gave beatings to Tikam Chand. Rajesh Kumar, Susheel
Kumar and Harish Kumar noticed bleeding injuries suffered by
Tikam Chand. Rahul Kumar saw Tikam Chand lying near the
Hawan Kund. He noticed the petitioner and other accused
persons. Tara Chand, Rajiv and other persons gave beatings to
Rahul. The report from FSL has been received. There is sufficient
material to connect the petitioner with the commission of a
crime. He had given beatings to Tikam Chand which led to his
death. He had cremated the dead body and destroyed the
evidence. The petitioner Vinay Sharma had taken the
photographs of Tikam Chand and Rahul which were found in his
mobile phone. The petitioner is involved in a heinous offence.
He can intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail.
Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7
2025:HHC:3014
3. I have heard Mr Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate, vice Mr
Ravi Tanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Manoj
Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, for the
respondent-State.
4. Mr Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that as per the statements recorded by the
prosecution, the petitioner was not found to have inflicted any
injuries to the deceased. His mere presence at the spot along
with other villagers is not sufficient to connect him with the
commission of the murder. Some of the co-accused have been
released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the principle
of parity will apply to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that
the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on
bail.
5. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner
is involved in the commission of heinous offence. He can
intimidate the witnesses in case of his release on bail. Therefore,
he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
8
2025:HHC:3014
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 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 ac-
cused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any
conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly re-
lated to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin
Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 ob-
served 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 pres-
ence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the ac-
cused is not misused to impede the investigation, over-
awe 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 in-
terest of justice” has been construed in several deci-
sions of this Court. Though the competent court is em-
powered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condi-
tion” for the grant of bail under Sec-
tions 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the
court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the admin-
istration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and
ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to im-
pede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct
the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have
9
2025:HHC:3014dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legiti-
mately be imposed both in the context of bail and an-
ticipatory 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 ob-
served:
“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this
Court that criminal proceedings are not for the reali-
sation 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 convic-
tion and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the com-
plainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of se-
curing the presence of the accused at the time 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
10
2025:HHC:3014or 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 re-
alise the dues of the complainant, and that too, with-
out any trial.” (Emphasis supplied)
8. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
9. The prosecution is relying upon the statements of
Rahul Kumar recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and
Jagdish Sharma recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Rahul
Kumar stated in his statement on oath under section 164 of CrPC
that six villagers came to his house. Umesh beat him with a stick.
They took him to Sheetla Mata, Temple Complex where Umesh,
Tara Chand and Rajeev gave him beatings. Tikkam Chand was
lying near Hawan Kund. He had sustained bleeding injuries. The
villagers gave him and other persons beatings. The dead body of
Tikkam Chand was cremated. Tara Chand, Geeta Ram and
Shankar Lal carried the dead body to the crematorium. Rajesh,
Shankar Lal, Umesh, Geeta Ram, Ashish, Susheel, Happy, Om
Parkash, Tara Chand, Rajeev and other persons were present in
the crematorium.
10. Rahul Kumar stated in his statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Jagdish, Lakshay, Nitin, Ram Lal,
11
2025:HHC:3014
Nikhil and Bhanu gave him beatings. Umesh dragged him to
Sheetla Mata Temple where Rajeev, petitioner Vinay, Hemant,
Ashish, Tara Chand, Geeta Ram, Shankar Lal, Rajesh, Harish and
Susheel were present. Rajeev, Tara Chand and other persons
gave beatings to Tikkam Chand. Tara Chand, Geeta Ram,
Shankar Lal and Umesh carried the dead body to the
crematorium. Rajeev, petitioner Vinay, Ashish, Hemant, Rajesh,
Ram Lal, Harish, Susheel, Ram Chand, Bhanu, Om Prakash,
Happy and Jagdish were present in the crematorium.
11. Jagdish stated in his statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that Umesh gave beatings to Sewa Nand
and dragged Rahul. Rahul was taken to Sheetla Mata temple
where Rajeev, petitioner Vinay, Hemant, Ashish, Tara Chand,
Geeta Ram Shankar, Rajesh, Harish and Susheel were present.
Umesh, Tara Chand, Asheesh and other persons gave him
beatings. Umesh gave beatings with a stick. Rajeev Sharma,
petitioner Vinay, Ashish, Hemant, Rajesh, Ram Lal, Harish,
Susheel, Ram Chand, Bhanu and Om Parkash were present in the
crematorium. The villagers cremated the dead body.
12
2025:HHC:3014
12. It is apparent from the statements that no specific
role is ascribed to the present petitioner. He was stated to be
present along with the co-accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has granted bail to Susheel, Harish and Rajesh who were stated
to be initially present in the temple complex as well as in the
crematorium with the present petitioner. There is a force in the
submission of Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the case of the petitioner cannot be distinguished
from these persons and once they were held entitled to bail by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail cannot be denied to the
present petitioner.
13. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.04.2024
for about one year. The status report shows that the matter is
listed for the service on 01.07.2025, which means that the trial of
the petitioner is not likely to commence soon. The petitioner
cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely, waiting for the
commencement and conclusion of the trial.
14. The petitioner stated that he is a permanent resident
of District Shimla. This was not stated to be incorrect in the
13
2025:HHC:3014
status report filed by the State. It means that the petitioner has
roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding.
15. It was submitted that the petitioner will intimidate
the witnesses in case of his release on bail. This apprehension
can be removed by imposing conditions and is not sufficient to
deny the bail to the petitioner. The prosecution has a right to
approach the Court in case of misuse of the liberty by the
petitioner.
16. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of
₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the
petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: –
(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses,
nor will he influence any evidence in any manner
whatsoever;
(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and
every hearing and will not seek unnecessary
adjournments;
(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for
a continuous period of seven days without
furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO
concerned, the Police Station concerned and the
Trial Court;
14
2025:HHC:3014
(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to
the Court; and
(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and
social media contact to the Police and the Court and
will abide by the summons/notices received from
the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social
Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile
number or social media accounts, the same will be
intimated to the Police/Court within five days from
the date of the change.
17. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of
any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to
file a petition for cancellation of the bail.
18. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy
of this order be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail,
Shimla (Kaithu) and the learned Trial Court by FASTER.
19. The observation made herein before shall remain
confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no
bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Vacation Judge
30th January, 2025
(Chander)
Digitally signed by KARAN SINGH GULERIA
Date: 2025.01.31 11:23:35 IST
[ad_1]
Source link