VIKRAM NEGI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred these petitions, under section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in case FIR No. 35 of 2014 dated 21.2.2014, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla, under sections 302, 376, 202 read with section 34 IPC. The status report has been filed by the respondent -State.

(2.) THE prosecution story as emerges is that on 21.2.2014, at about 12.05 a.m., Sh. Deep Ram Sharma, driver of Tanker bearing registration No. HR - 37B -6499 reported to police station, Dhalli that when he was returning back from Bithal Rampur to Shimla, then at place Rain Shelter Sadhora, they found a lady in naked position, who was crying to save her. There was a car parked nearby in which three -four people were sitting. They did not stop out of fear. On this information, the investigation team rushed to the spot and found a dead body of a lady in a naked state. On the basis of rukka, FIR was registered. Investigating agency swung into action. There were tyre marks of vehicle found on the spot. The post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted. The visera, vaginal swab and smear were sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Laboratory Junga. The accused persons were arrested. It was revealed that accused Pankaj Modi had caused the death of lady, who was later on identified to be Chitra, by crushing her inside the wheels of Maruti Alto bearing registration No. HP -01A -2723. All the other accused persons including petitioners were also arrested for the participation in crime of alleged offence. Hence, accused persons were booked for commission of offence of rape coupled with murder of deceased Chitra in furtherance of common intention and intentionally omitting to give any information in respect of that offence which they were legally bound to give.

(3.) MR . Satyen Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that this court has already released on bail three of the other co -accused vide order dated 26.4.2014, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P -1 and, therefore, the present petitioners should also be released on bail. The respondents have opposed this prayer on the ground that the offence committed is not only serious, but heinous one and, therefore, no leniency can be shown to the petitioners. It is also contended that three petitioners were already released on bail only on account of the fact that they were ladies. I have perused the status report and the complete record of investigation and find that the role and complicity attributed to the present bail petitioners is in no way and in no manner different from the one attributed to the co -accused, who have already been ordered to be released on bail.