Sanjeev Kumar alias Sanju v. State of Himachal Pradesh

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 99 of 2011 dated 14.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, under Sections 341, 302, 323, 506, 147, 148, 149, 364, 427, 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

It has been stated that the prosecution case is that deceased and complainant Ravi Kumar had gone towards Manali on 14.7.2011 in vehicle No. HR-12R-5533. They were stopped near Jhiri rafting point. One person started dancing in front of the vehicle along with his friends. He gave beatings to the complainant, deceased and other occupants. The deceased took the vehicle towards Kullu, accused and his friends followed him in a van bearing registration No. HP-33-T-9658 and the deceased was brought back to rafting point, Jhiri. One of the accused attacked deceased with sword. The deceased ran towards river and died Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes 2 subsequently due to injuries sustained by him. The petitioner was arrested on 15.7.2011. The investigation was complete and charge sheet against the petitioner and other co-accused was filed on 20.9.2011. The charge was framed on 12.12.2011.

The case after framing of the charge has been fixed several times for PWs and till now, prosecution has examined only 14 witnesses. It appears from the order of the trial Court that the High Court had already fixed some time frame for concluding the trial. The prosecution has not examined any witness after 4.4.2012. The complainant has not yet been examined. The trial has been fixed for prosecution evidence on

30.10.2012 and remaining PWs on 31.10.2012. The petitioner moved an application for bail which has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi on 27.8.2012. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. He is in the jail without any fault on his part. The delay in conclusion of the trial is on the part of the prosecution. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. The case has been registered on the statement of Ravi Kumar. He has stated that on

14.7.2011 he , Parvesh Kumar and Kala Hunny started in vehicle No. HR- 12-R-5553 of Hunny from the house of Hunny to Manali at 3.00 a.m. They reached Jhiri rafting point at about 2.00 p.m. One boy started dancing in front of the vehicle. The companions of that boy stopped the vehicle and gave beatings to the complainant party. Hunny proceeded towards Kullu in the vehicle. The accused in van No. HP-33-T-9658 followed Hunny and brought Hunny back at the rafting point. One boy attacked Hunny with sword. Hunny ran towards river, on this case was registered. 3

The van and car were taken into possession. The accused Pane Ram, Sanjeev Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were arrested on

14.7.2011. On 15.7.2011 Hunny succumbed to the injuries. The postmortem on the dead body of Hunny was got conducted. Hem Raj was arrested on 15.7.2011. The sword was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, Sections 302, 364, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added. On completion of investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court. Now, the case is fixed for 29, 30.11.2012. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till now the statements of 14 witnesses have been recorded by the prosecution. After 4.4.2012, no statement has been recorded. The petitioner was arrested on 15.7.2011. He is languishing in the jail without any fault on his part. The charge was framed on

12.12.2011 and without any fault on the part of the petitioner the trial of the case is going with slow pace. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that there are in all about 24 witnesses, out of them, statements of substantial number of witnesses have already been recorded. The trial itself is going to be over shortly. The petitioner himself has come forward with the plea that the High Court has already fixed some time frame. The petitioner and co-accused have committed serious offence. There is no delay in the conduct of the trial keeping in view of seriousness of the case and pendency of other cases.

The petitioner is involved in a serious case. According to petitioner the statements of 14 PWs have already been recorded. The case is now fixed for prosecution evidence on 29,30.11.2012. In these 4 circumstances, the trial itself is going to be completed very shortly. The bail application of the petitioner after the framing of the charge and recording of some prosecution witnesses has already been dismissed by the Court below. In view of seriousness of the case and the allegations against the petitioner, no case for bail is made out, resultantly the petition is dismissed.

The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 1, 2012 (GR) ( Kuldip Singh), Judge.