Ajay Mohan Goel, J
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in FIR No. 45 of 2021, dated 14.08.2021, registered under Sections 302, 323, 352, 451, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in all there are eight accused. Out of them three are ladies, one is a juvenile and four accused are male. They all are members of the same family. The ladies already stand released on bail by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that after the alleged incident took place and the FIR was registered, the petitioner continuous to be in custody since 15.08.2021, meaning thereby that now he is in custody for more than two years and seven months. Learned counsel further submitted that otherwise also, the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged to have been committed by him and a perusal of the investigation that has been carried out in the matter by the police would demonstrate that there is no material to implicate the petitioner. He submitted that the prosecution has cited twenty seven witnesses. Examination of two eye witnesses was completed on 02.03.2024 and the third eye witness was given up as far back as on 01.06.2023. He further stated that there is no other eye witness now to be examined and as the next date for recording the statements of some of the witnesses of the prosecution is fixed for 19/20/21.09.2024, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice in case the petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail. Learned counsel also argued that as the statements of the eye witnesses already stand recorded, therefore, otherwise also now there is no impediment in the release of the petitioner who is having no previous criminal history as there is no likelihood of the petitioner trying to prevail upon the material witnesses. Accordingly, he submitted that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be ordered to be released on bail.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner alongwith other accused was grave and heinous and in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail there is each and every possibility that he may either try to evade the trial or he may try to influence and win over remaining prosecution witnesses which may create impediment in the course of conduct of a fair trial. He further submitted that the trial is otherwise proceeding at a reasonable peace and therefore also the present petition deserves to be dismissed. No other point was urged.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the status report as well as the other record made available for perusal of the Court by the learned Additional Advocate General.
5. The circumstances under which the FIR was registered in short stand narrated as under:-
On the basis of the statement recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code of one Kumari Susheela Sharma, the FIR in issue was lodged on 14.08.2021, to the effect that a Gayatri Paath was being organized in their house for the purification of the deity; they had cleaned the place of Ishta Deva the same morning and on account of bad weather had put a tarpaulin over the Ishta Deva; one Shri Satish Sharma Pandit Ji had come to their house for the purpose of Pooja; around 1:30 p.m. their neighbour Santosh pulled down the tarpaulin placed over the Ishta Deva and threw the same in the courtyard; when her sister-in-law saw Santosh committing the said act she went to the back of the house and the younger sister of the complainant alognwith her sister-in-law questioned Santosh as to why he had thrown the tarpaulin and Santosh remarked that some kind of witchcraft was being performed by the family of the comlainant. To cut the issue short, all this resulted in altercation and as per the complainant, Santosh hit the brother of the complainant, namely, Shri Padam Dev with a stick on his head and the other accused pushed him into a gorge forty five feet deep, resulting in the death of Shri Padam Dev.
6. Whether or not, the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed by him of course is a matter of trial, but fact of matter remains that he is in custody since 15. 08.2021. It has not been disputed before the Court that out of the three eye witnesses the statements of two witnesses stand recorded and the third one was given up by the prosecution. It has also not been disputed before the Court that now the next date is fixed before the learned Trial Court for recording the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses in the month of September, 2024.
7. This Court is of the considered view that on account of said facts and taking into consideration the backdrop in which the alleged incident took place and further the fact that the petitioner otherwise is not having any criminal history and three of the accused who happened to be ladies are already released on bail by this Court earlier, without there being any allegation on behalf of the prosecution that the said release of accused has created any impediment in the course of the fair trial, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice in case the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, because his continuing to be in custody will not serve any purpose.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 45 of 2021, dated 14.08.2021, registered under Sections 302, 323, 352, 451, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., subject to his furnishing personal bail in the sum of two lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned.
The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
“(a) He shall 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;
(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;
(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and
(d) He will not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the leave of the Court."
9. It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of bail. The petition stands disposed in above terms.
