BALAK RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is co-accused in FIR No. 115 of 2018, dtd. 8/12/2018, registered under Ss. 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. He has prayed for being released on regular bail.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the aforesaid FIR was registered in view of the statement given by one Narayan Singh under Sec. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He stated that he was neighbour of petitioner Balak Ram ; Petitioner had two sons, elder one Khem Chand and the younger by the name of Desh Raj ; Petitioner's daughter was married, however, his sons were unmarried ; On 7/12/2018 at around 8.00 p.m. while he was returning home, he noticed petitioner and his elder son Khem Singh giving kick blows to Desh Raj ; He though saw the beatings given to Desh Raj , however, proceeded to his home and narrated the events to his son Girdhari ; Sometime later, he glanced towards petitioner's house, but could not see any individual on the path and found the doors of petitioner's house closed ; Next day in the morning of 8/12/2018, he saw gathering of people and found out that Desh Raj had died and his naked body was lying in a 'khud'. He apprehended that Desh Raj was killed by Balak Ram and Khem Chand.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for almost five years. The trial has been considerably delayed. Therefore, on ground of depreviation of liberty on account of unduly delayed trial, the petitioner is entitled for bail. It was also submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner linking him with the crime alleged against him. There is no eye witness of the spot. Only on account of statement of Narayan Singh, the FIR was registered implicating the petitioner. Petitioner's wife Smt. Hirdi Devi, cited as a main witness, has been given up by the prosecution. None of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution thus far, have been able to implicate the petitioner in the FIR. All main witnesses stand examined. Therefore, in the event of petitioner's being enlarged on bail, there is neither any question of his tampering the prosecution evidence or influencing the prosecution witnesses. The prayer was accordingly made to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It was also submitted that petitioner will abide by all the conditions which may be imposed upon him in case of his enlargement on bail.