Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Decided On : Sep-24-2002
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 149', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 307', (int) 4 => 'Section 302', (int) 5 => 'Section 302' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Verma', (int) 1 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Tieog', (int) 3 => 'Bag, Ramesh Heta', (int) 4 => 'the Civil Hospital', (int) 5 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 6 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 7 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 8 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 9 => 'the applicability of Section 149', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'Cur LJ 810', (int) 12 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 13 => 'the applicability of Section 34', (int) 14 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 15 => 'Cri LJ 2201', (int) 16 => 'SC', (int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court', (int) 18 => 'the Kuldip Singh', (int) 19 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 20 => 'View', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'Punjab' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '19', (int) 1 => '147', (int) 2 => '148', (int) 3 => '149', (int) 4 => '201', (int) 5 => '23', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => 'two', (int) 10 => 'two', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '2', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => 'only one', (int) 16 => '6f', (int) 17 => '25,000/-', (int) 18 => 'one' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '19-7-2002', (int) 1 => '1969', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => ''10', (int) 4 => '1994', (int) 5 => '1994' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 6.30 p.m.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Savitri', (int) 1 => 'Bimla', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Draft', (int) 4 => 'Bhupender', (int) 5 => 'Draft', (int) 6 => 'Savitri', (int) 7 => 'Bimla', (int) 8 => 'Draft', (int) 9 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 10 => 'Sher Singh', (int) 11 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 12 => 'Bhupender', (int) 13 => 'Moti Ram', (int) 14 => 'Bhupender', (int) 15 => 'Bhupender', (int) 16 => 'Savitri', (int) 17 => 'Bimla', (int) 18 => 'Law Officer', (int) 19 => 'Bhupender', (int) 20 => 'Savitri', (int) 21 => 'Bimla', (int) 22 => 'Draft', (int) 23 => 'Savitri', (int) 24 => 'Bimla', (int) 25 => 'Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 26 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 27 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 28 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 29 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 30 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 31 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 32 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 33 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 34 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 35 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 36 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 37 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 38 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 39 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jaspal Singh', (int) 41 => 'Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 42 => 'Rec Cri R 137', (int) 43 => 'Kuldip Singh' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Theog', (int) 1 => 'Theog', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Bhupender', (int) 4 => 'Ramesh', (int) 5 => 'Haryana', (int) 6 => 'Theog' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'second' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '890806', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Section 437', 'appealno' => 'CRl. M. P. (M) Nos. 1183, 1184 and 1185 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' T.R. Chandel, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' J.S. Guleria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-09-24', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' M.R. Verma, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.R. Verma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 97 of 2002 dated 19-7-2002 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 201, I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tieog, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution against the accused petitioners (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') is that on 19-7-2002 at about 6.30 p.m. at Bag, Ramesh Heta (since deceased and hereafter referred to as 'the deceased') was caught hold by the accused persons and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him. In the meanwhile, Bhupender, another co-accused named in the F.I.R., inflicted a 'Draft' blow to the deceased on the back portion of his neck while proclaiming that he would be done to death there and then. After inflicting the injury with the aforesaid blow to the deceased, said Bhupender while carrying the 'Draft' bolted away and the accused persons and co-accused Savitri and Bimla also ran towards their house. As a consequence of the 'Draft' blow the deceased fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohan Lal and in the meanwhile Sher Singh also came on the spot. When the injured was being removed to the Civil Hospital, Theog, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. Mohan Lal lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station, Theog. During the course of investigation, the weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes of Bhupender, co-accused, had been recovered and taken in possession by the police. Injuries were noticed on the person of Bhupender, co-accused, when he was got medically examined on 23-7-2002. On post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ramesh, a single injury was found on the left side of his neck and the cause of his death, as per the medical, opinion, is ante mortem injury over the neck causing severing of a major vein and puncturing of left lung causing hemorrhagic shock and death. It has further been found during the investigation that the relations between the families of accused Kewal Ram and that of the father of the deceased are inimical because of some land dispute and accused Kewal Ram and Jeet Ram are facing social boycott. At the material time said Bhupender was blocking a path used by villagers which runs through the land belonging to accused Kewal Ram. Moti Ram father of the deceased, objected. However, said Bhupender asserted that he would not allow anybody to enter in his land. In the meanwhile, the deceased also came there and started removing the stones fixed by Bhupender for blocking the path. It enraged Bhupender who rushed towards his house and returned to the spot accompanied by the accused persons and the said co-accused and thereafter the occurrence took place, as already stated hereinabove.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused persons are presently lodged in judicial lock up. Their co-accused, namely, Savitri and Bimla, had already been released on bail. The accused persons have claimed bail on the grounds that it was with oblique motive that all the members of the family of accused Kewal Ram had been implicated in the case without any basis and particularly no common object or common intention to murder Ramesh on the part of the accused persons can be inferred from the contents of the F.I.R. and the allegations against them that they caught hold of deceased are totally false.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Law Officer for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution version that the deceased was caught hold by three bail petitioners and two of their co-accused pelted stones at him is unbelievable and as per the material on record particularly the First Information Report it cannot be said that the accused had either the common intention or common object to kill the deceased. None of them is alleged to have inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased and even according to the prosecution they were not armed with any weapon which clearly negatives the prosecution al-legation that the accused, along with their co-accused, acted in furtherance of common object of killing Ramesh. It was further contended by the learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the bail applications of the accused persons, has also observed that there is reasonable force in the contention raised for the accused that the question regarding application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is debatable. It was further contended that the learned Sessions Judge denied the bail to the accused persons mainly for the reason that the possibility of retributory action by or at the instance of the complainant party could not be ruled out at this stage if the accused persons are enlarged on bail. However, such an apprehension is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused who in the facts and circumstances of the case are entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the other hand, the learned law Officer has contended that there is evidence on record to prima facie show that the accused persons and their co-accused had the common object to kill the deceased and it was in furtherance of such common object that Bhupender caused fatal injury to the deceased, therefore, the accused are involved in the commission of grave offences for which severe punishment is provided in law, therefore, they should not be released on bail. It was further contended that the atmosphere in the village and in adjoining areas is surcharged and, if released on bail, the lives of the accused may be in danger at the hands of the people of the area and their release may create law and order situation. Therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As is the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the accused persons is that they caught hold of the deceased and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him and thereafter Bhupender gave him the fatal blow with a 'Draft'. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that when a person is caught hold of by three persons two other persons are pelting stones at him, then such person and those persons who have caught hold of him will not sustain any injury. Therefore, the version regarding pelt ing of stones and holding of the deceased is prima facie clouded by suspicion as none of the accused persons who are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co- accused Savitri and Bimla were pelting stones at the deceased did not receive any injury whatsoever and no injury caused by the pelting of stones was found on the per son of the deceased. Mere catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they haw the common object of killing the deceased as the applicability of Section 149, IPC, In the facts of the ease, is a debatable question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 Cur LJ 810 (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused persons to substantiate his contention) wherein the case of the prosecution was that accused Niranjan Singh caught hold of the deceased and fell him down and accused Thakar Singh throttled his neck, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........ It is not a case in which it can be legitimately contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was any pre-planned common intention on the part of both Niranjan Singh and his father Thakar Singh in throttling the deceased. There could be no such intention on the part of Niranjan Singh even in executing his act of catching hold of the boy by the arms and throwing him down on the ground. The act of throttling by Thakar Singh followed per se and was independent of the act of throwing the boy down by Niranjan Singh. Thus, there is no community of intention in the act performed by Niranjan Singh and that executed by Thakar Singh. The two are distinct ones and one has nothing to do with the other. No intention on the part of Niranjan Singh from his act could be inferred in common with the intention of throttling by Thakar Singh, which followed later on. It is not a case in which it could be held that throwing down was committed by Niranjan Singh in furtherance of the common intention of throttling by Thakar Singh. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is uncalled for. Niranjan Singh appellant could not be held vicariously liable by virtue of that Section. This is additional ground of his being entitled to acquittal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) Recent CR 582 (2) wherein one of the accused caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick but did not cause any injury to the deceased whereas his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased while on the following premise :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Though the motive was with the petitioner and he caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick, he did, not cause any injury to the deceased. Rather his co-accused did cause injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. In this situation, applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal Code is a moot point. It would thus be apt that the petitioner gets the concession of bail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 137 : (1994 Cri LJ 2201) (SC) where one of the accused inflicted the injury on the head of the injured with sharp edged weapon and the second accused gave 'Lathi' blow on his shoulder causing simple injury allegedly with the common intention of accused in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the injury on the head of the injured was serious one and proved to be grievous, therefore, the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against Kuldip Singh who caused such injury but in so far as the other co-accused is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the 'Lathi' causing swelling, therefore, it could not be said that he shared the common intention along with the Kuldip Singh in attempt to commit the murder of the injured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Keeping in view the above position in law and the role attributed to the accused persons and the facts and circumstances of the case, bail cannot be denied to the accused persons on the sole ground that they are involved in the commission of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. by virtue of being members of the alleged unlawful assembly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There is no doubt that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is a grave offence for which the extreme penalty of death has been provided in law. However, the mere gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail, while deciding the question of grant or refusal of the bail, other factors such as the nature of evidence, the part played by the accused in the commission of the 6f-fence and the likelihood of the accused absconding or, tampering with prosecution evidence has also to be taken into account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. There is no allegation that if released on bail, the accused are likely to abscond with a View to evade the trial. Further there is no material on record to show that in the event of bail, the accused are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence which consist of such persons who are admittedly at logger's head with the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The contention that if released on bail the accused persons may be assaulted or any other criminal offence may be committed against their person by the complain-ant party is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused persons. It is the duty of the State to protect the life and property of its citizens. No law authorizeo the detention in custody of a person whose life is in danger. The contention, therefore, is simply unsustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In view of the above discussion, there is no legal impediment or lawful reason to deny bail to the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. As a result, these petitions are allowed and the accused persons are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog. The bail, however, is subject to the conditions that the accused persons shall not. in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall not indulge in the commission of such acts as are alleged to have been committed by them and shall not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation and trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Copy dasti, as prayed for.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2003(2)ALD(Cri)17,2003CriLJ736', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '890806' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 149', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 307', (int) 4 => 'Section 302', (int) 5 => 'Section 302' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Verma', (int) 1 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Tieog', (int) 3 => 'Bag, Ramesh Heta', (int) 4 => 'the Civil Hospital', (int) 5 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 6 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 7 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 8 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 9 => 'the applicability of Section 149', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'Cur LJ 810', (int) 12 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 13 => 'the applicability of Section 34', (int) 14 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 15 => 'Cri LJ 2201', (int) 16 => 'SC', (int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court', (int) 18 => 'the Kuldip Singh', (int) 19 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 20 => 'View', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'Punjab' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '19', (int) 1 => '147', (int) 2 => '148', (int) 3 => '149', (int) 4 => '201', (int) 5 => '23', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => 'two', (int) 10 => 'two', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '2', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => 'only one', (int) 16 => '6f', (int) 17 => '25,000/-', (int) 18 => 'one' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '19-7-2002', (int) 1 => '1969', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => ''10', (int) 4 => '1994', (int) 5 => '1994' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 6.30 p.m.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Savitri', (int) 1 => 'Bimla', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Draft', (int) 4 => 'Bhupender', (int) 5 => 'Draft', (int) 6 => 'Savitri', (int) 7 => 'Bimla', (int) 8 => 'Draft', (int) 9 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 10 => 'Sher Singh', (int) 11 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 12 => 'Bhupender', (int) 13 => 'Moti Ram', (int) 14 => 'Bhupender', (int) 15 => 'Bhupender', (int) 16 => 'Savitri', (int) 17 => 'Bimla', (int) 18 => 'Law Officer', (int) 19 => 'Bhupender', (int) 20 => 'Savitri', (int) 21 => 'Bimla', (int) 22 => 'Draft', (int) 23 => 'Savitri', (int) 24 => 'Bimla', (int) 25 => 'Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 26 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 27 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 28 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 29 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 30 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 31 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 32 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 33 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 34 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 35 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 36 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 37 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 38 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 39 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jaspal Singh', (int) 41 => 'Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 42 => 'Rec Cri R 137', (int) 43 => 'Kuldip Singh' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Theog', (int) 1 => 'Theog', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Bhupender', (int) 4 => 'Ramesh', (int) 5 => 'Haryana', (int) 6 => 'Theog' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'second' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '890806', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Section 437', 'appealno' => 'CRl. M. P. (M) Nos. 1183, 1184 and 1185 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' T.R. Chandel, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' J.S. Guleria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-09-24', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' M.R. Verma, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.R. Verma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 97 of 2002 dated 19-7-2002 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 201, I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tieog, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution against the accused petitioners (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') is that on 19-7-2002 at about 6.30 p.m. at Bag, Ramesh Heta (since deceased and hereafter referred to as 'the deceased') was caught hold by the accused persons and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him. In the meanwhile, Bhupender, another co-accused named in the F.I.R., inflicted a 'Draft' blow to the deceased on the back portion of his neck while proclaiming that he would be done to death there and then. After inflicting the injury with the aforesaid blow to the deceased, said Bhupender while carrying the 'Draft' bolted away and the accused persons and co-accused Savitri and Bimla also ran towards their house. As a consequence of the 'Draft' blow the deceased fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohan Lal and in the meanwhile Sher Singh also came on the spot. When the injured was being removed to the Civil Hospital, Theog, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. Mohan Lal lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station, Theog. During the course of investigation, the weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes of Bhupender, co-accused, had been recovered and taken in possession by the police. Injuries were noticed on the person of Bhupender, co-accused, when he was got medically examined on 23-7-2002. On post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ramesh, a single injury was found on the left side of his neck and the cause of his death, as per the medical, opinion, is ante mortem injury over the neck causing severing of a major vein and puncturing of left lung causing hemorrhagic shock and death. It has further been found during the investigation that the relations between the families of accused Kewal Ram and that of the father of the deceased are inimical because of some land dispute and accused Kewal Ram and Jeet Ram are facing social boycott. At the material time said Bhupender was blocking a path used by villagers which runs through the land belonging to accused Kewal Ram. Moti Ram father of the deceased, objected. However, said Bhupender asserted that he would not allow anybody to enter in his land. In the meanwhile, the deceased also came there and started removing the stones fixed by Bhupender for blocking the path. It enraged Bhupender who rushed towards his house and returned to the spot accompanied by the accused persons and the said co-accused and thereafter the occurrence took place, as already stated hereinabove.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused persons are presently lodged in judicial lock up. Their co-accused, namely, Savitri and Bimla, had already been released on bail. The accused persons have claimed bail on the grounds that it was with oblique motive that all the members of the family of accused Kewal Ram had been implicated in the case without any basis and particularly no common object or common intention to murder Ramesh on the part of the accused persons can be inferred from the contents of the F.I.R. and the allegations against them that they caught hold of deceased are totally false.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Law Officer for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution version that the deceased was caught hold by three bail petitioners and two of their co-accused pelted stones at him is unbelievable and as per the material on record particularly the First Information Report it cannot be said that the accused had either the common intention or common object to kill the deceased. None of them is alleged to have inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased and even according to the prosecution they were not armed with any weapon which clearly negatives the prosecution al-legation that the accused, along with their co-accused, acted in furtherance of common object of killing Ramesh. It was further contended by the learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the bail applications of the accused persons, has also observed that there is reasonable force in the contention raised for the accused that the question regarding application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is debatable. It was further contended that the learned Sessions Judge denied the bail to the accused persons mainly for the reason that the possibility of retributory action by or at the instance of the complainant party could not be ruled out at this stage if the accused persons are enlarged on bail. However, such an apprehension is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused who in the facts and circumstances of the case are entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the other hand, the learned law Officer has contended that there is evidence on record to prima facie show that the accused persons and their co-accused had the common object to kill the deceased and it was in furtherance of such common object that Bhupender caused fatal injury to the deceased, therefore, the accused are involved in the commission of grave offences for which severe punishment is provided in law, therefore, they should not be released on bail. It was further contended that the atmosphere in the village and in adjoining areas is surcharged and, if released on bail, the lives of the accused may be in danger at the hands of the people of the area and their release may create law and order situation. Therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As is the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the accused persons is that they caught hold of the deceased and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him and thereafter Bhupender gave him the fatal blow with a 'Draft'. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that when a person is caught hold of by three persons two other persons are pelting stones at him, then such person and those persons who have caught hold of him will not sustain any injury. Therefore, the version regarding pelt ing of stones and holding of the deceased is prima facie clouded by suspicion as none of the accused persons who are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co- accused Savitri and Bimla were pelting stones at the deceased did not receive any injury whatsoever and no injury caused by the pelting of stones was found on the per son of the deceased. Mere catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they haw the common object of killing the deceased as the applicability of Section 149, IPC, In the facts of the ease, is a debatable question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 Cur LJ 810 (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused persons to substantiate his contention) wherein the case of the prosecution was that accused Niranjan Singh caught hold of the deceased and fell him down and accused Thakar Singh throttled his neck, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........ It is not a case in which it can be legitimately contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was any pre-planned common intention on the part of both Niranjan Singh and his father Thakar Singh in throttling the deceased. There could be no such intention on the part of Niranjan Singh even in executing his act of catching hold of the boy by the arms and throwing him down on the ground. The act of throttling by Thakar Singh followed per se and was independent of the act of throwing the boy down by Niranjan Singh. Thus, there is no community of intention in the act performed by Niranjan Singh and that executed by Thakar Singh. The two are distinct ones and one has nothing to do with the other. No intention on the part of Niranjan Singh from his act could be inferred in common with the intention of throttling by Thakar Singh, which followed later on. It is not a case in which it could be held that throwing down was committed by Niranjan Singh in furtherance of the common intention of throttling by Thakar Singh. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is uncalled for. Niranjan Singh appellant could not be held vicariously liable by virtue of that Section. This is additional ground of his being entitled to acquittal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) Recent CR 582 (2) wherein one of the accused caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick but did not cause any injury to the deceased whereas his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased while on the following premise :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Though the motive was with the petitioner and he caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick, he did, not cause any injury to the deceased. Rather his co-accused did cause injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. In this situation, applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal Code is a moot point. It would thus be apt that the petitioner gets the concession of bail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 137 : (1994 Cri LJ 2201) (SC) where one of the accused inflicted the injury on the head of the injured with sharp edged weapon and the second accused gave 'Lathi' blow on his shoulder causing simple injury allegedly with the common intention of accused in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the injury on the head of the injured was serious one and proved to be grievous, therefore, the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against Kuldip Singh who caused such injury but in so far as the other co-accused is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the 'Lathi' causing swelling, therefore, it could not be said that he shared the common intention along with the Kuldip Singh in attempt to commit the murder of the injured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Keeping in view the above position in law and the role attributed to the accused persons and the facts and circumstances of the case, bail cannot be denied to the accused persons on the sole ground that they are involved in the commission of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. by virtue of being members of the alleged unlawful assembly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There is no doubt that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is a grave offence for which the extreme penalty of death has been provided in law. However, the mere gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail, while deciding the question of grant or refusal of the bail, other factors such as the nature of evidence, the part played by the accused in the commission of the 6f-fence and the likelihood of the accused absconding or, tampering with prosecution evidence has also to be taken into account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. There is no allegation that if released on bail, the accused are likely to abscond with a View to evade the trial. Further there is no material on record to show that in the event of bail, the accused are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence which consist of such persons who are admittedly at logger's head with the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The contention that if released on bail the accused persons may be assaulted or any other criminal offence may be committed against their person by the complain-ant party is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused persons. It is the duty of the State to protect the life and property of its citizens. No law authorizeo the detention in custody of a person whose life is in danger. The contention, therefore, is simply unsustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In view of the above discussion, there is no legal impediment or lawful reason to deny bail to the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. As a result, these petitions are allowed and the accused persons are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog. The bail, however, is subject to the conditions that the accused persons shall not. in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall not indulge in the commission of such acts as are alleged to have been committed by them and shall not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation and trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Copy dasti, as prayed for.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2003(2)ALD(Cri)17,2003CriLJ736', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '890806' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 149', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 307', (int) 4 => 'Section 302', (int) 5 => 'Section 302' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Verma', (int) 1 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Tieog', (int) 3 => 'Bag, Ramesh Heta', (int) 4 => 'the Civil Hospital', (int) 5 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 6 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 7 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 8 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 9 => 'the applicability of Section 149', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'Cur LJ 810', (int) 12 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 13 => 'the applicability of Section 34', (int) 14 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 15 => 'Cri LJ 2201', (int) 16 => 'SC', (int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court', (int) 18 => 'the Kuldip Singh', (int) 19 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 20 => 'View', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'Punjab' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '19', (int) 1 => '147', (int) 2 => '148', (int) 3 => '149', (int) 4 => '201', (int) 5 => '23', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => 'two', (int) 10 => 'two', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '2', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => 'only one', (int) 16 => '6f', (int) 17 => '25,000/-', (int) 18 => 'one' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '19-7-2002', (int) 1 => '1969', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => ''10', (int) 4 => '1994', (int) 5 => '1994' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 6.30 p.m.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Savitri', (int) 1 => 'Bimla', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Draft', (int) 4 => 'Bhupender', (int) 5 => 'Draft', (int) 6 => 'Savitri', (int) 7 => 'Bimla', (int) 8 => 'Draft', (int) 9 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 10 => 'Sher Singh', (int) 11 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 12 => 'Bhupender', (int) 13 => 'Moti Ram', (int) 14 => 'Bhupender', (int) 15 => 'Bhupender', (int) 16 => 'Savitri', (int) 17 => 'Bimla', (int) 18 => 'Law Officer', (int) 19 => 'Bhupender', (int) 20 => 'Savitri', (int) 21 => 'Bimla', (int) 22 => 'Draft', (int) 23 => 'Savitri', (int) 24 => 'Bimla', (int) 25 => 'Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 26 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 27 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 28 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 29 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 30 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 31 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 32 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 33 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 34 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 35 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 36 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 37 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 38 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 39 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jaspal Singh', (int) 41 => 'Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 42 => 'Rec Cri R 137', (int) 43 => 'Kuldip Singh' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Theog', (int) 1 => 'Theog', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Bhupender', (int) 4 => 'Ramesh', (int) 5 => 'Haryana', (int) 6 => 'Theog' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'second' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '890806', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Section 437', 'appealno' => 'CRl. M. P. (M) Nos. 1183, 1184 and 1185 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' T.R. Chandel, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' J.S. Guleria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-09-24', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' M.R. Verma, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.R. Verma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 97 of 2002 dated 19-7-2002 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 201, I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tieog, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution against the accused petitioners (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') is that on 19-7-2002 at about 6.30 p.m. at Bag, Ramesh Heta (since deceased and hereafter referred to as 'the deceased') was caught hold by the accused persons and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him. In the meanwhile, Bhupender, another co-accused named in the F.I.R., inflicted a 'Draft' blow to the deceased on the back portion of his neck while proclaiming that he would be done to death there and then. After inflicting the injury with the aforesaid blow to the deceased, said Bhupender while carrying the 'Draft' bolted away and the accused persons and co-accused Savitri and Bimla also ran towards their house. As a consequence of the 'Draft' blow the deceased fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohan Lal and in the meanwhile Sher Singh also came on the spot. When the injured was being removed to the Civil Hospital, Theog, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. Mohan Lal lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station, Theog. During the course of investigation, the weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes of Bhupender, co-accused, had been recovered and taken in possession by the police. Injuries were noticed on the person of Bhupender, co-accused, when he was got medically examined on 23-7-2002. On post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ramesh, a single injury was found on the left side of his neck and the cause of his death, as per the medical, opinion, is ante mortem injury over the neck causing severing of a major vein and puncturing of left lung causing hemorrhagic shock and death. It has further been found during the investigation that the relations between the families of accused Kewal Ram and that of the father of the deceased are inimical because of some land dispute and accused Kewal Ram and Jeet Ram are facing social boycott. At the material time said Bhupender was blocking a path used by villagers which runs through the land belonging to accused Kewal Ram. Moti Ram father of the deceased, objected. However, said Bhupender asserted that he would not allow anybody to enter in his land. In the meanwhile, the deceased also came there and started removing the stones fixed by Bhupender for blocking the path. It enraged Bhupender who rushed towards his house and returned to the spot accompanied by the accused persons and the said co-accused and thereafter the occurrence took place, as already stated hereinabove.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused persons are presently lodged in judicial lock up. Their co-accused, namely, Savitri and Bimla, had already been released on bail. The accused persons have claimed bail on the grounds that it was with oblique motive that all the members of the family of accused Kewal Ram had been implicated in the case without any basis and particularly no common object or common intention to murder Ramesh on the part of the accused persons can be inferred from the contents of the F.I.R. and the allegations against them that they caught hold of deceased are totally false.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Law Officer for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution version that the deceased was caught hold by three bail petitioners and two of their co-accused pelted stones at him is unbelievable and as per the material on record particularly the First Information Report it cannot be said that the accused had either the common intention or common object to kill the deceased. None of them is alleged to have inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased and even according to the prosecution they were not armed with any weapon which clearly negatives the prosecution al-legation that the accused, along with their co-accused, acted in furtherance of common object of killing Ramesh. It was further contended by the learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the bail applications of the accused persons, has also observed that there is reasonable force in the contention raised for the accused that the question regarding application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is debatable. It was further contended that the learned Sessions Judge denied the bail to the accused persons mainly for the reason that the possibility of retributory action by or at the instance of the complainant party could not be ruled out at this stage if the accused persons are enlarged on bail. However, such an apprehension is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused who in the facts and circumstances of the case are entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the other hand, the learned law Officer has contended that there is evidence on record to prima facie show that the accused persons and their co-accused had the common object to kill the deceased and it was in furtherance of such common object that Bhupender caused fatal injury to the deceased, therefore, the accused are involved in the commission of grave offences for which severe punishment is provided in law, therefore, they should not be released on bail. It was further contended that the atmosphere in the village and in adjoining areas is surcharged and, if released on bail, the lives of the accused may be in danger at the hands of the people of the area and their release may create law and order situation. Therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As is the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the accused persons is that they caught hold of the deceased and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him and thereafter Bhupender gave him the fatal blow with a 'Draft'. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that when a person is caught hold of by three persons two other persons are pelting stones at him, then such person and those persons who have caught hold of him will not sustain any injury. Therefore, the version regarding pelt ing of stones and holding of the deceased is prima facie clouded by suspicion as none of the accused persons who are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co- accused Savitri and Bimla were pelting stones at the deceased did not receive any injury whatsoever and no injury caused by the pelting of stones was found on the per son of the deceased. Mere catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they haw the common object of killing the deceased as the applicability of Section 149, IPC, In the facts of the ease, is a debatable question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 Cur LJ 810 (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused persons to substantiate his contention) wherein the case of the prosecution was that accused Niranjan Singh caught hold of the deceased and fell him down and accused Thakar Singh throttled his neck, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........ It is not a case in which it can be legitimately contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was any pre-planned common intention on the part of both Niranjan Singh and his father Thakar Singh in throttling the deceased. There could be no such intention on the part of Niranjan Singh even in executing his act of catching hold of the boy by the arms and throwing him down on the ground. The act of throttling by Thakar Singh followed per se and was independent of the act of throwing the boy down by Niranjan Singh. Thus, there is no community of intention in the act performed by Niranjan Singh and that executed by Thakar Singh. The two are distinct ones and one has nothing to do with the other. No intention on the part of Niranjan Singh from his act could be inferred in common with the intention of throttling by Thakar Singh, which followed later on. It is not a case in which it could be held that throwing down was committed by Niranjan Singh in furtherance of the common intention of throttling by Thakar Singh. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is uncalled for. Niranjan Singh appellant could not be held vicariously liable by virtue of that Section. This is additional ground of his being entitled to acquittal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) Recent CR 582 (2) wherein one of the accused caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick but did not cause any injury to the deceased whereas his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased while on the following premise :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Though the motive was with the petitioner and he caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick, he did, not cause any injury to the deceased. Rather his co-accused did cause injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. In this situation, applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal Code is a moot point. It would thus be apt that the petitioner gets the concession of bail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 137 : (1994 Cri LJ 2201) (SC) where one of the accused inflicted the injury on the head of the injured with sharp edged weapon and the second accused gave 'Lathi' blow on his shoulder causing simple injury allegedly with the common intention of accused in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the injury on the head of the injured was serious one and proved to be grievous, therefore, the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against Kuldip Singh who caused such injury but in so far as the other co-accused is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the 'Lathi' causing swelling, therefore, it could not be said that he shared the common intention along with the Kuldip Singh in attempt to commit the murder of the injured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Keeping in view the above position in law and the role attributed to the accused persons and the facts and circumstances of the case, bail cannot be denied to the accused persons on the sole ground that they are involved in the commission of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. by virtue of being members of the alleged unlawful assembly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There is no doubt that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is a grave offence for which the extreme penalty of death has been provided in law. However, the mere gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail, while deciding the question of grant or refusal of the bail, other factors such as the nature of evidence, the part played by the accused in the commission of the 6f-fence and the likelihood of the accused absconding or, tampering with prosecution evidence has also to be taken into account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. There is no allegation that if released on bail, the accused are likely to abscond with a View to evade the trial. Further there is no material on record to show that in the event of bail, the accused are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence which consist of such persons who are admittedly at logger's head with the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The contention that if released on bail the accused persons may be assaulted or any other criminal offence may be committed against their person by the complain-ant party is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused persons. It is the duty of the State to protect the life and property of its citizens. No law authorizeo the detention in custody of a person whose life is in danger. The contention, therefore, is simply unsustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In view of the above discussion, there is no legal impediment or lawful reason to deny bail to the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. As a result, these petitions are allowed and the accused persons are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog. The bail, however, is subject to the conditions that the accused persons shall not. in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall not indulge in the commission of such acts as are alleged to have been committed by them and shall not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation and trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Copy dasti, as prayed for.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2003(2)ALD(Cri)17,2003CriLJ736', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '890806' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 149', (int) 1 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 2 => 'the Indian Penal Code', (int) 3 => 'Section 307', (int) 4 => 'Section 302', (int) 5 => 'Section 302' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Verma', (int) 1 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Tieog', (int) 3 => 'Bag, Ramesh Heta', (int) 4 => 'the Civil Hospital', (int) 5 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 6 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 7 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 8 => 'Kewal Ram', (int) 9 => 'the applicability of Section 149', (int) 10 => 'IPC', (int) 11 => 'Cur LJ 810', (int) 12 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 13 => 'the applicability of Section 34', (int) 14 => 'Haryana High Court', (int) 15 => 'Cri LJ 2201', (int) 16 => 'SC', (int) 17 => 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court', (int) 18 => 'the Kuldip Singh', (int) 19 => 'I.P.C.', (int) 20 => 'View', (int) 21 => 'State', (int) 22 => 'Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1', (int) 1 => 'Punjab', (int) 2 => 'Punjab' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '19', (int) 1 => '147', (int) 2 => '148', (int) 3 => '149', (int) 4 => '201', (int) 5 => '23', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => 'two', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => 'two', (int) 10 => 'two', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '2', (int) 13 => '3', (int) 14 => 'one', (int) 15 => 'only one', (int) 16 => '6f', (int) 17 => '25,000/-', (int) 18 => 'one' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '19-7-2002', (int) 1 => '1969', (int) 2 => '1986', (int) 3 => ''10', (int) 4 => '1994', (int) 5 => '1994' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 6.30 p.m.' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Savitri', (int) 1 => 'Bimla', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Draft', (int) 4 => 'Bhupender', (int) 5 => 'Draft', (int) 6 => 'Savitri', (int) 7 => 'Bimla', (int) 8 => 'Draft', (int) 9 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 10 => 'Sher Singh', (int) 11 => 'Mohan Lal', (int) 12 => 'Bhupender', (int) 13 => 'Moti Ram', (int) 14 => 'Bhupender', (int) 15 => 'Bhupender', (int) 16 => 'Savitri', (int) 17 => 'Bimla', (int) 18 => 'Law Officer', (int) 19 => 'Bhupender', (int) 20 => 'Savitri', (int) 21 => 'Bimla', (int) 22 => 'Draft', (int) 23 => 'Savitri', (int) 24 => 'Bimla', (int) 25 => 'Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 26 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 27 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 28 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 29 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 30 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 31 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 32 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 33 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 34 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 35 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 36 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 37 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 38 => 'Thakar Singh', (int) 39 => 'Niranjan Singh', (int) 40 => 'Jaspal Singh', (int) 41 => 'Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab', (int) 42 => 'Rec Cri R 137', (int) 43 => 'Kuldip Singh' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Theog', (int) 1 => 'Theog', (int) 2 => 'Bhupender', (int) 3 => 'Bhupender', (int) 4 => 'Ramesh', (int) 5 => 'Haryana', (int) 6 => 'Theog' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'second' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '890806', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Section 437', 'appealno' => 'CRl. M. P. (M) Nos. 1183, 1184 and 1185 of 2002', 'appellant' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc.', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Jeet Ram and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => ' - ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' T.R. Chandel, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' J.S. Guleria, Adv.', 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2002-09-24', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' M.R. Verma, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">M.R. Verma, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 97 of 2002 dated 19-7-2002 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 201, I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tieog, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the prosecution against the accused petitioners (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') is that on 19-7-2002 at about 6.30 p.m. at Bag, Ramesh Heta (since deceased and hereafter referred to as 'the deceased') was caught hold by the accused persons and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him. In the meanwhile, Bhupender, another co-accused named in the F.I.R., inflicted a 'Draft' blow to the deceased on the back portion of his neck while proclaiming that he would be done to death there and then. After inflicting the injury with the aforesaid blow to the deceased, said Bhupender while carrying the 'Draft' bolted away and the accused persons and co-accused Savitri and Bimla also ran towards their house. As a consequence of the 'Draft' blow the deceased fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohan Lal and in the meanwhile Sher Singh also came on the spot. When the injured was being removed to the Civil Hospital, Theog, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. Mohan Lal lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station, Theog. During the course of investigation, the weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes of Bhupender, co-accused, had been recovered and taken in possession by the police. Injuries were noticed on the person of Bhupender, co-accused, when he was got medically examined on 23-7-2002. On post-mortem examination of the dead body of Ramesh, a single injury was found on the left side of his neck and the cause of his death, as per the medical, opinion, is ante mortem injury over the neck causing severing of a major vein and puncturing of left lung causing hemorrhagic shock and death. It has further been found during the investigation that the relations between the families of accused Kewal Ram and that of the father of the deceased are inimical because of some land dispute and accused Kewal Ram and Jeet Ram are facing social boycott. At the material time said Bhupender was blocking a path used by villagers which runs through the land belonging to accused Kewal Ram. Moti Ram father of the deceased, objected. However, said Bhupender asserted that he would not allow anybody to enter in his land. In the meanwhile, the deceased also came there and started removing the stones fixed by Bhupender for blocking the path. It enraged Bhupender who rushed towards his house and returned to the spot accompanied by the accused persons and the said co-accused and thereafter the occurrence took place, as already stated hereinabove.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused persons are presently lodged in judicial lock up. Their co-accused, namely, Savitri and Bimla, had already been released on bail. The accused persons have claimed bail on the grounds that it was with oblique motive that all the members of the family of accused Kewal Ram had been implicated in the case without any basis and particularly no common object or common intention to murder Ramesh on the part of the accused persons can be inferred from the contents of the F.I.R. and the allegations against them that they caught hold of deceased are totally false.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Law Officer for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution version that the deceased was caught hold by three bail petitioners and two of their co-accused pelted stones at him is unbelievable and as per the material on record particularly the First Information Report it cannot be said that the accused had either the common intention or common object to kill the deceased. None of them is alleged to have inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased and even according to the prosecution they were not armed with any weapon which clearly negatives the prosecution al-legation that the accused, along with their co-accused, acted in furtherance of common object of killing Ramesh. It was further contended by the learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the bail applications of the accused persons, has also observed that there is reasonable force in the contention raised for the accused that the question regarding application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is debatable. It was further contended that the learned Sessions Judge denied the bail to the accused persons mainly for the reason that the possibility of retributory action by or at the instance of the complainant party could not be ruled out at this stage if the accused persons are enlarged on bail. However, such an apprehension is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused who in the facts and circumstances of the case are entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On the other hand, the learned law Officer has contended that there is evidence on record to prima facie show that the accused persons and their co-accused had the common object to kill the deceased and it was in furtherance of such common object that Bhupender caused fatal injury to the deceased, therefore, the accused are involved in the commission of grave offences for which severe punishment is provided in law, therefore, they should not be released on bail. It was further contended that the atmosphere in the village and in adjoining areas is surcharged and, if released on bail, the lives of the accused may be in danger at the hands of the people of the area and their release may create law and order situation. Therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As is the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the accused persons is that they caught hold of the deceased and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him and thereafter Bhupender gave him the fatal blow with a 'Draft'. Prima facie it is difficult to believe that when a person is caught hold of by three persons two other persons are pelting stones at him, then such person and those persons who have caught hold of him will not sustain any injury. Therefore, the version regarding pelt ing of stones and holding of the deceased is prima facie clouded by suspicion as none of the accused persons who are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co- accused Savitri and Bimla were pelting stones at the deceased did not receive any injury whatsoever and no injury caused by the pelting of stones was found on the per son of the deceased. Mere catching hold of the deceased by the accused persons may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they haw the common object of killing the deceased as the applicability of Section 149, IPC, In the facts of the ease, is a debatable question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 Cur LJ 810 (relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused persons to substantiate his contention) wherein the case of the prosecution was that accused Niranjan Singh caught hold of the deceased and fell him down and accused Thakar Singh throttled his neck, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........ It is not a case in which it can be legitimately contended on behalf of the prosecution that there was any pre-planned common intention on the part of both Niranjan Singh and his father Thakar Singh in throttling the deceased. There could be no such intention on the part of Niranjan Singh even in executing his act of catching hold of the boy by the arms and throwing him down on the ground. The act of throttling by Thakar Singh followed per se and was independent of the act of throwing the boy down by Niranjan Singh. Thus, there is no community of intention in the act performed by Niranjan Singh and that executed by Thakar Singh. The two are distinct ones and one has nothing to do with the other. No intention on the part of Niranjan Singh from his act could be inferred in common with the intention of throttling by Thakar Singh, which followed later on. It is not a case in which it could be held that throwing down was committed by Niranjan Singh in furtherance of the common intention of throttling by Thakar Singh. Thus, the applicability of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is uncalled for. Niranjan Singh appellant could not be held vicariously liable by virtue of that Section. This is additional ground of his being entitled to acquittal.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In Jaspal Singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (2) Recent CR 582 (2) wherein one of the accused caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick but did not cause any injury to the deceased whereas his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused who had only caught hold of the deceased while on the following premise :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Though the motive was with the petitioner and he caught hold of the deceased while armed with a stick, he did, not cause any injury to the deceased. Rather his co-accused did cause injuries to the deceased which resulted in his death. In this situation, applicability of Section 34 Indian Penal Code is a moot point. It would thus be apt that the petitioner gets the concession of bail.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) Rec Cri R 137 : (1994 Cri LJ 2201) (SC) where one of the accused inflicted the injury on the head of the injured with sharp edged weapon and the second accused gave 'Lathi' blow on his shoulder causing simple injury allegedly with the common intention of accused in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the injury on the head of the injured was serious one and proved to be grievous, therefore, the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against Kuldip Singh who caused such injury but in so far as the other co-accused is concerned, he inflicted only one blow on the shoulder with the 'Lathi' causing swelling, therefore, it could not be said that he shared the common intention along with the Kuldip Singh in attempt to commit the murder of the injured.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Keeping in view the above position in law and the role attributed to the accused persons and the facts and circumstances of the case, bail cannot be denied to the accused persons on the sole ground that they are involved in the commission of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. by virtue of being members of the alleged unlawful assembly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There is no doubt that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is a grave offence for which the extreme penalty of death has been provided in law. However, the mere gravity of the offence and the severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail, while deciding the question of grant or refusal of the bail, other factors such as the nature of evidence, the part played by the accused in the commission of the 6f-fence and the likelihood of the accused absconding or, tampering with prosecution evidence has also to be taken into account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. There is no allegation that if released on bail, the accused are likely to abscond with a View to evade the trial. Further there is no material on record to show that in the event of bail, the accused are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence which consist of such persons who are admittedly at logger's head with the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The contention that if released on bail the accused persons may be assaulted or any other criminal offence may be committed against their person by the complain-ant party is no reason for curtailing the liberty of the accused persons. It is the duty of the State to protect the life and property of its citizens. No law authorizeo the detention in custody of a person whose life is in danger. The contention, therefore, is simply unsustainable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In view of the above discussion, there is no legal impediment or lawful reason to deny bail to the accused persons.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. As a result, these petitions are allowed and the accused persons are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog. The bail, however, is subject to the conditions that the accused persons shall not. in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall not indulge in the commission of such acts as are alleged to have been committed by them and shall not deliberately and intentionally act in a manner which may tend to delay the investigation and trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Copy dasti, as prayed for.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '2003(2)ALD(Cri)17,2003CriLJ736', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '890806' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 149, the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Penal Code, Section 307, Section 302, Section 302
ORG: Verma, I.P.C., Police Station, Tieog, Bag, Ramesh Heta, the Civil Hospital, Kewal Ram, Kewal Ram, Kewal Ram, Kewal Ram, the applicability of Section 149, IPC, Cur LJ 810, Haryana High Court, the applicability of Section 34, Haryana High Court, Cri LJ 2201, SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Kuldip Singh, I.P.C., View, State, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
NORP: J.1, Punjab, Punjab
CARDINAL: 19, 147, 148, 149, 201, 23, three, two, three, two, two, 2, 2, 3, one, only one, 6f, 25,000/-, one
DATE: 19-7-2002, 1969, 1986, '10, 1994, 1994
TIME: about 6.30 p.m.
PERSON: Savitri, Bimla, Bhupender, Draft, Bhupender, Draft, Savitri, Bimla, Draft, Mohan Lal, Sher Singh, Mohan Lal, Bhupender, Moti Ram, Bhupender, Bhupender, Savitri, Bimla, Law Officer, Bhupender, Savitri, Bimla, Draft, Savitri, Bimla, Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab, Niranjan Singh, Thakar Singh, Niranjan Singh, Thakar Singh, Niranjan Singh, Thakar Singh, Niranjan Singh, Niranjan Singh, Thakar Singh, Niranjan Singh, Thakar Singh, Niranjan Singh, Thakar Singh, Niranjan Singh, Jaspal Singh, Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, Rec Cri R 137, Kuldip Singh
GPE: Theog, Theog, Bhupender, Bhupender, Ramesh, Haryana, Theog
ORDINAL: second