IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.597 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.07.2025 Balam Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. George, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. : H.C. Sandeep Kumar No.122, I/O, Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., present along with record. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is co-accused in FIR No.132 of 2022 dated 17.11.2022, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. He is in custody since the date of registration of the FIR, i.e. 17.11.2022. By means of present petition, he seeks his enlargement on regular bail. 2. The case. 2(i). The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Smt. Krishna Devi under Section 154 of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’). The complainant alleged that her husband, Sh. Jagdish Chand, had been working as a daily wager under the petitioner and one Sh. Prakash Chand (both named as accused in the FIR) at Chandesh, Sarkaghat, District Mandi. He had been engaged for collecting scrap for the accused persons for the past five years. On 03.10.2022, Sh. Jagdish Chand left his house as usual at around 08:30 a.m. to go to work, but he did not return home that day. The complainant tried to contact her husband on 04.10.2022, but his phone was found to be switched off. 2(ii). On 05.10.2022, the complainant inquired about the whereabouts of her husband from the petitioner and also apprised him that her husband’s mobile phone was switched off. Upon this, petitioner informed the complainant that her husband had taken Rs.1500/- from him for going to Kullu to attend Dussehra festival and would return in a few days. On this assurance, the complainant waited for 5–6 days, but her husband did not return. She again went to the petitioner's place, the petitioner now informed her that her husband had gone to Rampur with a Muslim person to work as a daily wager @ Rs.600/- per day. The complainant, however, -3- suspected that the petitioner had abducted her husband with the intention to kill him. The complainant lodged missing person report at Sarkaghat Police Station on 14.10.2022. 2(iii). During investigation conducted by the police, statement of one Sh. Naresh Kumar alias Sonu was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. According to his version, on 04.10.2022, while on way to his destination and passing near the petitioner’s scrap store, he had heard noise of quarrel and shouting from inside the scrap store. Upon knocking at the shutter and asking as to what was going on inside, the shutter was opened by the petitioner. Sh. Naresh Kumar saw the victim, Sh. Jagdish Chand, lying on the floor, blood oozing from his nose and also splattered on the petitioner’s shirt. Sh. Naresh Kumar further disclosed that petitioner requested him to call his brother Prakash Chand (co-accused). Naresh Kumar accordingly fetched Prakash Chand to the place of occurrence. Upon seeing blood stained shirt of the petitioner, Prakash Chand asked Naresh Kumar to fetch a shirt for the petitioner. Naresh Kumar brought his own old shirt from his house for the petitioner. He requested the petitioner to take Jagdish Chand to a hospital as he -4- appeared to have suffered serious injuries. Whereafter, the petitioner and the co-accused, Prakash Chand, took injured Jagdish Chand in their Maruti Van towards Fatehpur. 2(iv). On the basis of investigation carried out from Sh. Naresh Kumar alias Sonu, petitioner was arrested on 17.11.2022. Investigation was carried out from the petitioner. Petitioner is stated to have disclosed during the course of investigation that on 04.10.2022, Jagdish Chand was in his scrap store and was engaged on a video call with some lady. Time and again during the phone call, he had been turning the camera towards the petitioner, this was being repeatedly objected to by the petitioner. Jagdish Chand kept on ignoring petitioner’s objections. The heated exchange eventually resulted in full-blown quarrel between the two. Jagdish Chand held the petitioner by his neck and threw him on floor. He started beating the petitioner. Petitioner tried to escape but was not successful. In order to escape from Jagdish Chand’s grip, he hurled a fist which landed on Jagdish Chand’s nose, still petitioner was not able to free himself. In desperation, he gave legs blow which landed on Jagdish Chand’s chest. Due to impact of the blow, Jagdish Chand hit a pillar, sustaining serious head injury. Naresh -5- Kumar @ Sonu had also visited the scrap store. Petitioner along with Prakash Chand carried Jagdish Chand for medical treatment. On way to hospital, Jagdish Chand requested for water, he was given water but soon thereafter, he died. 2(v). The petitioner is also stated to have got recorded his statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that body of Jagdish Chand was concealed by him in ‘Jagdoh Nala’. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by the petitioner, the dead body of the victim (Jagdish Chand) was recovered by the investigating agency. Co-accused, Prakash Chand, was also arrested on 23.11.2022. As per the status report, bail was granted to the co-accused (Prakash Chand) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat on 22.12.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has spent almost 2 years and 7 months in custody. Petitioner is innocent and is not responsible for the death of victim (Jagdish Chand). The victim had died due to fall and on sustaining head injury. That no case against the petitioner is made out for offense under Section 302 IPC. That there is no direct or indirect, oral or documentary -6- evidence against the petitioner to even show that petitioner had any motive for causing death of Jagdish Chand or intention to cause any bodily injury to the victim with the knowledge that such injury would in all probability result in victim’s death. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that petitioner is accused of very serious allegation of causing death of Jagdish Chand. The offence committed by the petitioner is grave and heinous in nature. The respondents have enough evidence to implicate the petitioner with the offences alleged against him in the FIR. The recording of the evidence is underway before the learned Trial Court. The trial is under process. Petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, more so when he apart from murdering an innocent person had also caused disappearance of the evidence of commission of offence by disposing the dead body of Jagdish Chand in a drain (Nala) with intention to escape punishment. H.C. Sandeep Kumar No.122, I/O, Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., present along with record submitted that supplementary challan has also been presented, wherein 10 more witnesses have been cited. Out of total 40 prosecution witnesses in all, -7- statements of 22 witnesses (12 + 10) remains to be recorded. The matter is now fixed before the learned Trial Court on 06.08.2025 for recording the statements of two more prosecution witnesses. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file as also the record produced by the respondent. 4(i). It is a matter of record that petitioner is facing serious and grave accusations of murdering Jagdish Chand and thereafter, disposing of his body in order to conceal evidence. Nonetheless, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the FIR was registered against him on 17.11.2022 and he is in custody ever since the said date. His co-accused (Prakash Chand) had been enlarged on bail on 22.12.2022. The prosecution in all has to examine 40 witnesses. Over a span of more than 2 years and 7 months, the prosecution has been able to examine only 18 witnesses till now. 22 witnesses still remain to be examined. It can reasonably be presumed that the pace of trial is slow and it will take sufficiently long time for trial to complete. 4(ii). At this stage of grant of bail, the evidence adduced before the Trial Court is not to be gone into, lest it -8- prejudices the case of either party, however, the case projected by the petitioner is being briefly referred to for the purpose of deciding this petition that:- Jagdish Chand had been working with petitioner as Scrap Collector; He was in petitioner’s scrap store/shop on the fateful day and on a trivial issue a scuffle took place between the two, which went out of hand resulting in Jagdish Chand’s death. Whether such death was an intentional act of the petitioner or otherwise, has to be proved by leading cogent evidence by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not intend to kill Jagidish Chand. That he was trying to save himself from Jagdish Chand during the fight that took place between them. That he had taken Jagdish Chand to hospital for providing him medical treatment, but Jagdish Chand died on way to hospital. Statement of PW6, prima facie, appears to be lending credence to petitioner’s defense projected at this stage. PW6 is running a hospital and had stated about receiving a call from the petitioner for bringing an injured for medical treatment though he never came. Defense taken by petitioner might turn out to be a plausible one, it cannot be ignored at -9- this stage when material witnesses stand examined, but there is still a long way for trial to conclude. 4(iii). This bail petition was taken up for consideration on 02.07.2025 when the respondents apprised that but for one Smt. Anita Kumari, all other material witnesses had been examined. To alleviate the apprehensions of the respondent about petitioner’s influencing material witnesses in case of enlargement on bail, following order was passed on 02.07.2025:- “This bail petition is in respect of FIR No.132/2022, registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi on 17.11.2022. Petitioner is behind the bars w.e.f. 17.11.2022. According to the respondent, 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined and 14 remain to be examined. For examination of two prosecution witnesses, matter is stated to be listed before the learned Trial Court on 05.07.2025. An objection has been raised for the respondent that one Smt. Anita Kumari W/o Sh. Meen Pal is a material witness and is yet to be examined, though she is not in the list of witnesses scheduled to undergo examination on 05.07.2025. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General and in the interest of justice, it is ordered that prosecution shall make all possible endeavors for producing Smt. Anita Kumari W/o Sh. Meen Pal before the learned Trial Court on 05.07.2025, when the matter is stated to be scheduled for recording of prosecution evidence. In case of her production before the learned Trial Court on the said date, her statement shall be recorded notwithstanding the fact that she is not a summoned witness for the said date. List this matter on 08.07.2025, when record shall be produced by the respondent.” -10- During today’s hearing, it was informed that said Smt. Anita Kumari had been examined by the learned Trial Court on 05.07.2025. Thus, the apprehensions of the respondent that the petitioner may influence the material witnesses is now unfounded as all material witnesses stand examined. However, as noticed previously, the trial of the case in all probability will take long time to conclude, as the statements of 22 witnesses, including 10 cited in supplementary challan, are yet to be recorded. In given facts and circumstances, petitioner has made out a case for his enlargement on bail at this stage. He is in custody for 2 years & 7 months. His further detention would not serve any gainful purpose. Petitioner is otherwise said to be a local person having roots in society. Considering all relevant parameters, a case for grant of bail has been made out. 5. In view of above, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court having jurisdiction over the Police Station concerned, subject to the following conditions:- -11- (i) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence prosecution witnesses. (ii). Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer. (iv). Petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law. Petitioner shall not cause delay in conclusion of trial. (v). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any. For infraction of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of observations made hereinabove. -12- With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 8th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KAUSHAL DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU= HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone= 974672e58263d1efde6d3e05df3d1021e1b0d2b1765b7af15a ba3524b4b9b1df, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER= 54cab263e44e8d394ec98ece297f5f8d632420bfe805a7b552a 8ef6776c38912, CN=PRAVEEN KAUSHAL Reason: I agree to the terms defined by the placement of my signature in this document Location: Date: 2025.07.11 10:24:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 PRAVEEN KAUSHAL