Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3890 (HP)

Vijay Sandhu v. State of H. P.

2025-10-31

Virender Singh

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioner-Vijay Sandhu has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the order dated 02.12.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(1), Una, District Una, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Cr.MA No.968 of 2024, titled as Vijay Sandhu versus State, which has been filed in Sessions Trial No.44 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. versus Rasila Ram & others. 2. Brief facts, leading to filing the present petition, as borne out from the record of the case, may be summed up, as under: 2.1. On the statement of one Tirth Ram, son of late Shri Fedu Ram, which has been recorded, under Section 154 of Cr.PC, police of Police Station, Bangana, registered FIR No.74 of 2022, dated 18.09.2022, under Sections 306, 34 of IPC against respondents No.2 to 4 (hereinafter referred as the accused). Thereafter, the investigation was conducted against them. 2.2. During investigation, the accused persons had preferred the bail application, before the learned trial Court and on 01.10.2022, the learned trial Court has granted the bail to the accused persons, by imposing specific conditions, as enumerated in the bail order. 2.3. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner-Vijay Sandhu has moved application for cancellation of bail, which was granted to accused-Vinod Kumar, by the learned trial Court. The said application for cancellation has been filed on the ground that accused No.4-Vinod Kumar has violated the terms and conditions i.e. “he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.” 2.4. Petitioner-Vijay Sandhu has claimed himself to be the prosecution witness, as, he is the husband of deceased Neelam Kumari, who had allegedly committed suicide. It is his specific case that accused No.4-Vinod Kumar had breached the terms and conditions of the bail order, as, he has openly threatened the applicant to do away with his life, in case, he made statement against him in the Court and also attacked upon him, on 16.09.2024. 2.5. It is his specific case that accused No.4-Vinod Kumar had breached the terms and conditions of the bail order, as, he has openly threatened the applicant to do away with his life, in case, he made statement against him in the Court and also attacked upon him, on 16.09.2024. 2.5. In this regard, matter was reported to Police Station, Bangana, where, GD Entry No.19, dated 18.09.2024 was lodged and later on, applicant was medico legally examined at CHC Bangana, where, the doctor opined that the injuries found on the person of petitioner Vijay Sandhu are simple in nature. Thereafter, the police again recorded GD Entry No.26, dated 18.09.2024 and directed the petitioner to approach the competent Court. 2.6. On the basis of the above facts, the petitioner has prayed that the bail granted to accused No.4-Vinod Kumar may kindly be cancelled. 2.7. When, the notice of the application was issued to accused No.4-Vinod Kumar, he has contested the same by filing reply, in which, he has specifically taken the plea that he has not violated the terms and conditions of the bail order passed by the learned trial Court. The application is stated to be filed with an malafide intention, by concealing the true and material facts, just to harass the accused No.4-Vinod Kumar. 2.8. Factual position, with regard to the registration of the FIR and releasing the accused person on bail, has not been disputed. However, the allegations against him that he had allegedly threatened the applicant has been controverted and denied. 2.9. According to him, it is the petitioner, who is mentally torturing him and his father, on one pretext or the other. According to him, the petitioner had started blackmailing and creating pressure upon the accused Vinod Kumar and his father by compelling them to transfer valuable land to him. The petitioner is stated to be serving as Assistant Professor in Education Department and posted as such in ABV Government Degree College, Bangana, District Una, H.P. He has also pleaded that the accused persons have also filed the petition before the High Court for quashing FIR No.74 of 2022, dated 19.09.2022 and when the petitioner came to know about the said fact, then, he has started using abusive and unparliamentary language. He has termed the allegations as false and frivolous. 2.10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. He has termed the allegations as false and frivolous. 2.10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 2.11. The learned trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, has dismissed the application, vide order dated 02.12.2024. 3. Aggrieved from the said order, the present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court, mainly on the ground that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application, as, it has been proved on record that accused No.4-Vinod Kumar has violated the terms and conditions of bail, as, granted by the learned trial Court, since he has threatened the petitioner, who is acquainted with the facts of the case. 4. Highly relying upon the GD Entry No.19, dated 18.09.2024, as well as, GD Entry No.26, dated 18.09.2024, the petitioner has prayed that the order passed by the learned trial Court does not sustain in the eyes of law and same is liable to be set-aside. 5. In addition to this, the petitioner has alleged that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application, on the basis of the status report filed by the police and the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to file objections, against the status report, as the police has prepared the status report in connivance with accused No.4-Vinod Kumar, who is government servant, having high political links with local police. 6. In order to give strength to his contentions, the petitioner has pleaded that the police has intentionally filed the charge sheet after the prescribed period of 90 days and this fact, according to the petitioner is sufficient to draw an inference that the local police is hand in glove with accused No.4-Vinod Kumar and other accused persons. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition for setting aside the order, as passed by the learned trial Court, and by allowing the application for cancellation by cancelling the bail granted to accused No.4 Vinod Kumar. 8. Along with the petition, petitioner Vijay Sandhu has annexed the GD Entry No.19, dated 18.09.2024, photocopy of the MLC, photocopy of the sale deed, copy of the status report filed by the police, before the learned trial Court. 9. 8. Along with the petition, petitioner Vijay Sandhu has annexed the GD Entry No.19, dated 18.09.2024, photocopy of the MLC, photocopy of the sale deed, copy of the status report filed by the police, before the learned trial Court. 9. As per the status report filed before the learned trial Court, police has taken the specific stand that on 18.09.2024, petitioner-Vijay Sandhu, who is husband of deceased Neelam Kumari, appeared before the police and alleged that on 16.09.2024, his brother Vinod Kumar at about 8:00 AM, had beaten him without any rhyme or reason and also abused him and threatened to kill him, by stating that they will also finish him and his family members, upon which, petitioner-Vijay Sandhu was medico legally examined at CHC Bangana, where the doctor opined that the nature of injuries on the person of Vijay Sandhu is simple and vide GD Entry No.19, he has been directed to pursue his case before the learned trial Court. 10. The learned trial Court has rejected the contentions of the petitioner mainly on the ground that in the GD Entry No.19, there is no reference about the grounds, upon which, the cancellation has been sought and in the status report, no such defiance of the bail conditions has been reported. 11. The law regarding cancellation of the bail has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Dolat Ram and others versus State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349. Relevant paragraph 4 of the said judgment is reproduced, as under:- “4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.” 12. In another case titled as ‘Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat’, reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 66, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the bail can be cancelled, if material(s), on which, bail is granted is/are substantially irrelevant. Relevant Paragraphs 25 to 27 of the said judgment are reproduced, as under:- “25. The perversity as highlighted in Puran's case (supra) can also flow from the fact that as noted above, irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration adding vulnerability to the order granting bail. The irrelevant materials should be of a substantial nature and not of a trivial nature. In the instant case, the trial Court seems to have been swayed by the fact that Sohrabuddin had shady reputation and criminal antecedents. That was not certainly a factor which was to be considered while granting bail. It was nature of the acts which ought to have been considered. By way of illustration, it can be said that the accused cannot take a plea while applying for bail that the person whom he killed was a hardened criminal. That certainly is not a factor which can be taken into account. 26. Another significant factor which was highlighted by the State before the High Court was that an FIR allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake encounter. The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police. The accused was the leader of the Rajasthan team and the other officials were Abdul Rehman, Himanshu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shyam Singh and Jai Singh. The first named Abdul Rehman had lodged the FIR. The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police. The accused was the leader of the Rajasthan team and the other officials were Abdul Rehman, Himanshu Singh, Mohan Singh, Shyam Singh and Jai Singh. The first named Abdul Rehman had lodged the FIR. It is pointed out from the General Diary in respect of entry on 26.11.2005 that accused Dinesh was present. In FIR No.CR-I 5/2005 also the presence of Dinesh has been noted. The relevance of these factors does not appear to have been noticed by the High Court. In other words, relevant materials were kept out of consideration. Once it is concluded that bail was granted on untenable grounds, the plea of absence of supervening circumstances has no leg to stand. 27. We have only highlighted the above aspects to show that irrelevant materials have been taken into account and/or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration. That being so, the order of granting bail to the appellant was certainly vulnerable. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that whatever observations have been made are only to decide the question of grant of bail and shall not be treated to be expression of any opinion on merits. The case relating to acceptability or otherwise of the evidence is the subject matter for the trial Court.” 13. Being guided by the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, now, this Court would proceed further to consider the contention of petitioner-Vijay Sandhu, who has sought indulgence of this Court to set-aside the order dated 02.12.2024, passed by the learned trial Court and also prayed for cancellation of the bail, granted in favour of respondent No.4-Vinod Kumar. 14. As per the documents placed on record, the petitioner has got lodged Rapat No.19, dated 18.09.2024, in which, he has allegedly levelled the allegations against respondent No.4-Vinod Kumar, who, as per the stand of the petitioner is his younger brother. On 16.09.2024 at about 8:00 AM, he had beaten him, without any rhyme or reason, abused him and threatened to kill him. 15. On 16.09.2024 at about 8:00 AM, he had beaten him, without any rhyme or reason, abused him and threatened to kill him. 15. Not only this, he has openly proclaimed that he and his family members will also be finished like his wife, whereas, the petitioner is stated to be patient of paralysis and on the basis of the above facts he has threatened him and his family members. 16. The petitioner has further got lodged that from the time, when, they had killed his wife, they used to harass and threaten him and his family members without any reason. They also compelled him to leave that place and go to his father-in-law. He has further got lodged that his father has given him land for raising construction and consequently, he has raised the construction till plinth level, but, at the instance of Vinod Kumar, his father has not permitted him to raise construction. As such, he had prayed that action be taken against the said persons. 17. Thereafter, he had been medico legally examined. The injuries on his person were found to be simple and thereafter he was directed to pursue his matter in the Court vide Rapat No.26, dated 18.09.2024. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court, if the above allegations, are taken to be correct, then, how, those are related to the alleged violation of the conditions, imposed by the Court. The learned trial Court has released respondent No.4-Vinod Kumar on bail, subject to the following conditions:- “(a) that the bail-petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM/ACJM or any other Judicial Magistrate First Class at Una to join the investigation and to appear in the Court on each and every date whenever directed; (b) that the bail petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution evidence directly or indirectly, including or intimidating them in any manner; (c) that the bail-petitioner shall not leave territory of the India without prior permission of the Court.” 19. The allegations, as levelled against respondent No.4 in GD Entry No.19, dated 18.09.2024, are totally alien to the case, in which, respondent No.4 was arrested and was released on bail. The allegations, as levelled against respondent No.4 in GD Entry No.19, dated 18.09.2024, are totally alien to the case, in which, respondent No.4 was arrested and was released on bail. Whatsoever dispute, which has arisen after the incident, out of which, the G.D. Entry No.19, dated, 18.09.2024 has been lodged against respondent No.4 cannot be taken as violation of the terms and conditions of the bail order. 20. In view of above, there is no occasion for this Court to differ with the findings, so recorded, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Una, District Una, H.P., while dismissing the application of the petitioner and the same is accordingly upheld. 21. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.