DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of filing this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has approached this Court for grant of bail in case FIR No. 240 of 2015, dated 11.12.2015, registered under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 11.12.2015, at about 8:30 a.m., one Suresh Verma resident of Tang gave information to the Police at Police Post, Yol, that a dead body is lying alongside the road in front of K.C.C. Bank. Pursuant to this information police visited the spot and found a dead body. A mobile phone was recovered from the deceased and through which one Radha Devi was contacted by the Police and she identified the deceased as her husband. The complainant (mother of the deceased) got recorded her statement and as per her statement the deceased was running chowmin and momo shop. On 09.12.2015 the petitioner/accused in drunken state came to the shop of the deceased around 5 p.m. and thereafter at about 9:30 p.m. the deceased was taken by the petitioner/accused in his vehicle. On subsequent morning, i.e. 10.12.2015, the petitioner/accused left the deceased in his shop and they remained there till 1:30 p.m. Again the deceased was taken by the petitioner/accused and his associate Rinku to Court in the same vehicle and they again came back at 4 p.m. and at that time the deceased, Rinku and the petitioner/accused were drunk. The prosecution has further averred that at 9 p.m. the petitioner/accused took the deceased in his vehicle towards Yol and the deceased did not come back. On 11.12.2015 the complainant through telephone enquired the petitioner/accused about the deceased and he informed that he had left the deceased at Yol. The petitioner/accused also argued with the complainant and complainant came to know about the death of deceased from her daughter -in -law, Smt. Radha Devi. The deceased did not have any vendetta against anyone and he was last seen with the petitioner/accused. On the basis of the statement of the complainant an FIR was registered against some unknown person. Post mortem examination revealed that there were six injuries on the body of the deceased and there was ligature mark in the throat of the deceased. The prosecution has further averred that during the period from the night of 09.12.2015 till the night of 10.12.2015 the deceased was in the company of the petitioner/accused and on 11.12.2015 his dead body was found at Tang on the road side. On interrogation the petitioner/accused it came that the deceased was was left by him at Piru Mal Chowk, Yol, on the night of 10.12.2015 and the petitioner/accused was arrested on the basis of last seen together with the deceased. As per prosecution story, the petitioner/accused on refusal of the deceased to give evidence in his favour in the court of SDM killed the deceased. The petitioner/accused is employed as Constable in H.P. Police and being well aware of the things destroyed the evidence against him and he also did not get recovered of weapon of offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner/accused committed heinous crime and he can even now tamper the prosecution evidence. The prosecution has prayed for dismissal of the present bail petition.

(3.) As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the rule is bail and not jail. The petitioner has submitted that he is behind the bars since December, 2015 and he will not be in a position to defend him in case during the trial he is kept behind the bars. It is further argued that the petitioner is roped in on the basis of suspicion only and the he is local resident and is not in a position to flee from justice.