Jagdish Chand vs State of H.P.

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail. The Petitioner stands charged for offences u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Sadar, Nahan. Prior to filing of this present petition, the Petitioner approached this Court in an another petition being Cr. M.P. No. 1134 of 2010 praying for release on bail. That petition was disposed of by an order of this Court dated 8th October, 2010 holding that the evidence of the prosecution has been recorded and it would be open to the Petitioner to approach the trial Court again. Another petition for release on bail was filed by the Petitioner on 25.10.2010 before the learned trial court wherein detailed submissions have been made by the Petitioner herein. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who has seized of the matter, disposed of the petition holding that the evidence could not be analyzed in detail in the manner suggested to ascertain the involvement of the Petitioner herein. Thereafter, again the Petitioner moved this Court for release on bail in Cr. MP(M). No. 169 of 2011. A direction was issued by this Court that since there was no Additional District and Sessions Judge to try the case, the trial was transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge and to dispose of the trial expeditiously. Thereafter, again another petition was instituted by the Petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge on 26.3.2011 praying for release on bail which was rejected by the learned Court holding inter alia, that the statements of 28 prosecution witnesses have been recorded and three prosecution witnesses remains to be recorded whose evidence is fixed for 25.4.2011.

The first contention putforth by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is no incriminating evidence indicating the Petitioner in the offence and the learned Sessions Judge did not undertake analysis of the evidence as mandated by law. If the evidence of the prosecution is considered, there will be no justification of detaining the Petitioner in jail. Secondly, that the Petitioner is not a habitual offender nor he has any such history of committing crime etc. and, therefore, his enlargement on bail would not be a danger to the society and since the entire evidence has practically been recorded, there is no chance of the Petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned Counsel besides referring to the statements of the witnesses submits that the extra judicial confession has not been supported by the evidence on record and, therefore, the Petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Learned Counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, to urge that at the time when the bail is granted, a detailed examination of evidence is to be avoided to ensure that there is no prejudging of the entire case but, brief examination is required so that the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of a prima facie case. Learned Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, holds:

In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted. (See: Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others,

(P 536)

I have considered both the judgments. The principles of law as enunciated therein are well settled. However, what is important to consider in this case is that now only three witnesses require to be examined who have been summoned for 24th April, 2011. Secondly, the exercise which the Petitioner wants this Court to undertake is to consider the evidence of only those of the witnesses who according to the Petitioner exonerate him from complicity in the case. This not only entails an examination of the evidence in detail but also pre-judging the other evidence on the record. At a stage when the entire evidence of the prosecution is practically complete, this would amount to prejudging the entire issue and holding a trial of the case de-novo before this Court. Even if the witnesses have turned hostile, this Court has to undertake an exercise to see as to what portion of their statements can be accepted or rejected.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition which is rejected. Needless to say that the learned court shall proceed to decide the case expeditiously and to ensure that no un-warranted adjournments are granted thereby prolonging the detention of the Petitioner.