Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3514 (HP)

Sushil Kumar v. State of H. P.

2025-09-26

Virender Singh

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of the trial, arising out of FIR No. 12 of  2025,  dated  15.2.2025,  registered  under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 3(5), 61(2) and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station, Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P. 2. According to the applicant, he is innocent persons and has falsely been implicated and arrested by the Police. According to him, he has no concern, whatsoever with the crime, for which, he has been arrested, in this case. 3. The applicant has pleaded that he has two minor children to look after, as he and his wife are in judicial custody, in this case. 4. The applicant has further pleaded that he has earlier approached this Court by moving Cr. M.P. (M) No. 293 of 2025, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn, on 3.3.2025. Thereafter, he again moved bail application bearing No. 1027 of 2025, however, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 30.5.2025. 5. Apart from this, it has been pleaded by the applicant that co-accused of the applicant Uttam Singh has already been released on bail, by this Court, vide order dated 30.5.2025, by way of Cr. MP (M) No. 1028 of 2025. 6. The applicant, through his counsel, has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions, to be imposed by this Court, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial. 7. On these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail applications. 8. When, put to notice, Police filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 15.2.2025, I.O./ASI Pawan Kumar, Police Station, Jwalamukhi, Police District, Dehra, Kangra has submitted a ruqua on the statement of Suresh Kumar (complainant), made under Section 173 BNSS, to the Police for registration of the FIR, upon which, the Police registered a case under Sections 140(1), 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. The complainant has made the complaint against Nishu Bala, Sushil Kumar (applicant) and Uttam Singh. 9.1 The complainant has got recorded in his statement that he is resident of the address mentioned in the complaint and working as labourer. He is having three children (two sons and one daughter). The complainant has made the complaint against Nishu Bala, Sushil Kumar (applicant) and Uttam Singh. 9.1 The complainant has got recorded in his statement that he is resident of the address mentioned in the complaint and working as labourer. He is having three children (two sons and one daughter). His elder son is stated to be doing a private job in Jammu, whereas, his younger son Pankaj Kumar is stated to be doing the work of collection of blood samples for laboratory. 9.2 According to the complainant, on 18.1.2025, son of complainant, namely, Pankaj Kumar (deceased) is stated to have left the house at 8:00 a.m. without disclosing to anyone, on motorcycle bearing No. HP 37H 5279 (Black in colour). At about 2:30 p.m., they came to know that the motorcycle of his son Pankaj Kumar was found parked about 500 meters away from the house of the complainant, without handle-locked. Thereafter, the said motorcyle was brought back to the house and complainant and his wife had started looking for their son, in nearby places, but he was not found. 9.3 On 19.1.2025, Pankaj Kumar (deceased) was searched till evening and thereafter, at about 7:30 p.m., missing report of Pankaj Kumar was got lodged with Police Station, Panchrukhi, District Kangra, H.P. 9.4 On 13.2.2025, the complainant came to know that dead body of one un-identified person was found in the gorge at Jwalamukhi. The dead body was stated to be kept in mortuary of Civil Hospital, Dehra. The post-mortem of the dead body was stated to be got conducted on 15.2.2025, at RPGMC, Tanda, upon which, complainant and his daughter Rishva Dogra reached at mortuary of Tanda hospital and said dead body was identified by them to be of Pankaj Kumar, on the basis of tattoo, on his right arm and from the clothes on the dead body. 9.5 On the basis of above facts, the complainant has expressed his suspicion that his son has been kidnapped and killed by the aforesaid three persons. The dead body is stated to have been thrown at the place, from where, the same was found. 9.6 On the basis of above facts, the complainant has prayed that action be taken against the aforesaid three persons, upon which, Police machinery swung into motion after registration of the FIR. The dead body is stated to have been thrown at the place, from where, the same was found. 9.6 On the basis of above facts, the complainant has prayed that action be taken against the aforesaid three persons, upon which, Police machinery swung into motion after registration of the FIR. 9.7 Thereafter, the aforesaid persons were arrested and investigation of the case was conducted by SI/SHO, Police Station, Panchrukhi. 9.8 On 17.2.2025, the spot was visited by ASI Pawan Kumar. The spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. Forensic team was requested to visit the spot. Residential house of accused Nishu Bala was also visited by the forensic team and from the bath room of house of Nishu Bala, blood stains were found, and outside bathroom, a pair of shoes was also found, which were also taken into possession. Spot map of the house of Nishu Bala was got prepared and spot map of the place, where motorcycle was parked, was also got prepared. 9.9. On 17.2.2025, S.P. Kangra, constituted a Special Investigating Team (SIT) and further investigation was entrusted to Inspector/SHO, Bhupinder Singh Thakur, whereas Dy. S.P. was appointed as Supervisory Officer. 9.10. It is the further case of the Police that accused Nishu Bala, during investigation, disclosed that her husband Sushil Kumar (applicant) is teacher by profession, and she was having a love affair with deceased Pankaj Kumar, for the last seven years and they used to meet in her old house/store room, when her husband used to be out for his duty. Husband of Nishu Bala came to know about this fact, as such, he got installed CCTV cameras in the house. But, according to Nishu Bala, said store room was out of range of CCTV cameras. As and when, Pankaj Kumar (deceased) used to come to her, she used to switch off the CCTV cameras. 9.11 It is the further case of the Police that Nishu Bala also disclosed that she had a quarrel with Pankaj Kumar (deceased), and due to this fact, she has got lodged two FIRs against Pankaj Kumar, with Police Station, Panchrukhi, which are stated to be pending adjudication in Court at Palampur. Pankaj Kumar (deceased) also used to harass her and used to pressurize her to withdraw the cases. Pankaj Kumar (deceased) also used to harass her and used to pressurize her to withdraw the cases. 9.12 As per the stand taken in the status report, accused Nishu Bala also apprised this fact to her elder sister Rajni Bala (accused). 9.13 On 17.1.2025, Nishu Bala, alongwith her sister, had attended spiritual discourse in Asia Palace, Palampur, and on 18.1.2025, both had to attend a marriage in Asia Palace, Palampur, but, in the morning of 18.1.2025, when husband and children of accused Nishu Bala had gone to school, Pankaj Kumar came to the store room of Nishu Bala. At the relevant time, her sister Rajni Bala and her husband Ajay Kumar came to the house of Nishu Bala and called her, upon which, accused Nishu Bala responded from the store room, upon which, both Rajni Bala and Ajay Kumar came to the store room. On seeing Pankaj Kumar, Ajay Kumar asked Rajni Bala as to who was he, upon which, Rajni Bala apprised him that he used to harass  Nishu  Bala  for  withdrawing  the  cases registered against him. On this, verbal altercation between Ajay Kumar and Pankaj Kumar (deceased) took place. Ajay Kumar is stated to have become furious and stated to have inflicted two blows on the head of Pankaj Kumar with the iron rod, upon which, Pankaj Kumar (deceased) fell down in the store room. Accused Nishu Bala got frightened and screamed. Thereafter, Ajay Kumar and Rajni Bala took Nishu Bala inside the room. After some time, when Ajay Kumar again went to store room, he found that Pankaj Kumar had expired by that time. Ajay Kumar is stated to have locked the store room. 9.14 It is the further case of the Police that accused Nishu Bala apprised her husband about the incident, however, her husband did not believe her and told her to attended the marriage. Accused Ajay Kumar and Rajni Bala are stated to have left the place. Accused Nishu Bala is stated to have attended the marriage and in the evening, her husband Sushil Kumar (applicant) also attended the marriage. 9.15 At about 10:30 p.m., when, they came back from the marriage, her sister Rajni Bala told her to be in the room. Accused Ajay Kumar and Rajni Bala are stated to have left the place. Accused Nishu Bala is stated to have attended the marriage and in the evening, her husband Sushil Kumar (applicant) also attended the marriage. 9.15 At about 10:30 p.m., when, they came back from the marriage, her sister Rajni Bala told her to be in the room. Thereafter, her husband Sushil Kumar (applicant), Rajni Bala and Ajay Kumar went to store room and wrapped the dead body in a blanket and put the dead body in the dickey of vehicle bearing No. HP 56A-2976, in order to dispose off the dead body. Later on, Sushil Kumar (applicant) apprised Nishu Bala that they had thrown the dead body in the forest, where nobody can find the same. 9.16 It is the further case of the Police that during investigation, on 20.1.2025, accused Nishu Bala and Sushil Kumar (applicant) made a statement, under Section 23 of the BSA and at the instance of Nishu Bala, spot was inspected and spot map was prepared. The SFSL team visited the spot and collected the physical evidence. Accused Nishu Bala also got recovered the iron rod, with with Ajay Kumar had inflicted the injuries on the head of Pankaj Kumar. The vehicle, used for disposing off the dead body of Pankaj Kumar, was also taken into possession, alongwith the documents and keys. 9.17 Applicant Sushil Kumar made a statement and on the basis of said statement, got identified the place, where, they had destroyed the evidence by burning the jacket, pair of shoes, tarpoline and rope. The burnt ashes were also taken into possession, from the spot. 9.18 Thereafter, applicant Sushil Kumar has identified the place, where dead body of Pankaj Kumar was disposed off. Spot map was prepared. Applicant Sushil Kumar identified the place at Dehra, from where, he has thrown the mobile phone of Pankaj Kumar (deceased), in water. Spot map of said place was also prepared. Thereafter, provisions of Section 61(2) of the BNS were also also added. 9.19 When, involvement of accused Rajni Bala, and her husband Ajay Kumar was found, then, their custody was got transferred in the case, as both of them were already in judicial custody in a case, registered under Section NDPS Act. Both of them were remanded to the Police custody, till 25.2.2025. 9.19 When, involvement of accused Rajni Bala, and her husband Ajay Kumar was found, then, their custody was got transferred in the case, as both of them were already in judicial custody in a case, registered under Section NDPS Act. Both of them were remanded to the Police custody, till 25.2.2025. 9.20 As per the further stand of the Police, during investigation, accused Ajay Kumar has contradicted the stand of accused Nishu Bala, applicant Sushil Kumar and applicant Uttam Singh. According to him, at a place known as Menjha, his wife Rajni Bala called him and his wife Rajni Bala, Nishu Bala, applicant Sushil Kumar and his father in law applicant Uttam Singh were sitting  in  a  vehicle  No.HP56A-2976. He  was apprised that a boy, namely Pankaj Kumar (deceased), had died in the house of Nishu Bala and they are going to dispose off his dead body, upon which, accused Ajay Kumar, alongwith applicants Sushil Kumar (applicant) and Uttam Singh started searching for a place to dispose off the body. His father-in-law a Uttam Singh by handing over the mobile phone of Pankaj Kumar, directed him to throw away the mobile phone. Thereafter, all of them returned back. 9.21 According to the further stand of the Police, before they could reach the house of applicant Sushil Kumar, he apprised them that he has got installed CCTV cameras in the house and requested them to enter the house after he switches off the cameras. After CCTV cameras were switched off, they had gone to the store room of applicant Sushil Kumar, where dead body was lying. All of them had wrapped the dead body in tarpaulin and put the same in the aforesaid vehicle. 9.22 Thereafter, they had thrown the dead body at a pre-identified place at Kalidhar forest, however, the dead body got stuck in the boulders, upon which, he and Abhishek Kumar dragged the dead body and threw the same in the bushes. Thereafter, they had burnt the jacket of deceased Pankaj Kumar, tarpaulin, rope, as well as, pair of slippers of Pankaj Kumar. 9.23 It is the further case of the Police that during investigation, on 22.2.2025, accused Nishu Bala confessed that she had killed Pankaj Kumar with hoe and got recovered the same, in pursuance of her statement, recorded under Section 23 of BSA. 9.23 It is the further case of the Police that during investigation, on 22.2.2025, accused Nishu Bala confessed that she had killed Pankaj Kumar with hoe and got recovered the same, in pursuance of her statement, recorded under Section 23 of BSA. She has further got recorded in her statement that the mobile phone of Pankaj was with her, as she had taken out the mobile phone and keys of motorcycle of Pankaj Kumar (deceased) and mobile phone was handed over to her father Uttam Singh, in order to conceal/destroy the same. 9.24 It is the further case of the Police that since accused Nishu Bala, applicant Sushil Kumar and accused Uttam Singh, Ajay Kumar, Rajni Bala and Abhishek Kumar were in connivance with each other to destroy the evidence, as such, Section 238 of the BNS was added, in this case. 9.25 No other case is found to have been registered against applicant Sushil Kumar. 9.26 It has been pleaded in the status report that reports from RFSL, Dharamshala and SFSL, Junga are awaited. Charge sheet, in the present case, has been prepared and submitted to the Court of learned ACJM, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 9.27 On the basis of above facts, it has been apprehended that the applicant is very clever person and in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, he may coerce the witnesses and may also hamper the investigation of the case. 9.28 Lastly, it has been apprehended that the applicant has committed a heinous crime and in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, in that eventuality, chances of demonstration by the common people, are there. 9.29 On the basis of aforesaid facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 10. So far as the role, which has been attributed to applicant Sushil Kumar (applicant), is concerned, as per the stand of the Police, when, accused Nishu Bala informed him about the incident as to how accused Ajay Kumar inflicted two blows of the iron rod on the head of deceased Pankaj Kumar and he fell down, her husband did not believe her version and directed her to attend the marriage. 11. 11. As per further case of the Police that after attending the marriage at about 10:30 p.m, her husband applicant Sushil Kumar, Ajay Kumar, her sister Rajni Bala had gone to the store room alongwith blanket and wrapped the dead body of deceased Pankaj Kumar and tied the same with rope and put the same in dickey of vehicle No. HP56A-2976 and later on, applicant Sushil Kumar disclosed to his wife that they had thrown the dead body in the forest towards Jwala Ji. 12. During police custody on 20.2.2025, accused Nishu Bala and applicant Sushil Kumar made a disclosure statements, under Section 23 of BSA and on the basis of said statement, accused Nishu Bala identified the place at Batahan. Thereafter, team of RFSL also visited the spot and collected the physical evidence from there. Thereafter, accused Nishu Bala produced the iron rod, with which, fatal blows were inflicted upon deceased Pankaj Kumar. Applicant Sushil Kumar had produced the vehicle No. HP56A-2976, which was used for disposing off the body, by throwing the same in the forest. 13. Applicant Sushil Kumar, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, identified the place, where dead body was allegedly thrown. He has also disclosed that he alongwith Rajni Bala, Nishu Bala, Ajay Kumar, Abhishek Kumar had destroyed the evidence by burning the jacket, pair of slippers, blanket, tarpaulin and rope. Ashes from the spot were also taken into possession. Applicant Sushil Kumar also identified the place at Kalidhar, where dead body was thrown. 14. Considering the role attributed to applicant Sushil Kumar, as referred to above, this Court is of the view that releasing applicant Sushil Kumar on bail, at this stage, would give wrong signal to the society that after committing such a heinous crime, that too, in a planned manner, he is moving freely in the society. 15. Even otherwise, behaviour of applicant Sushil Kumar after getting information regarding the murder of deceased Pankaj Kumar, from his wife, is not normal and instead of taking swift action, in this regard, he pursuaded his wife to attend the marriage and later on, with the help of Ajay Kumar and Rajni Bala, he put the dead body of Pankaj Kumar in the car and disposed off the body by throwing the same in the forest. Not only this, they had allegedly burnt the wearing apparels of deceased Pankaj Kumar, alongwith other articles, in order to destroy the evidence. 16. The earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 30.5.2025 and applicant could not point out any change in circumstances. 17. In view of above, applicant Sushil Kumar is not able to make out a case for bail and as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 18. Consequently, the present application is dismissed. 19. Any of the observations, made herein above, shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations are confined, only to the disposal of the present bail application.