Ramnath vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest on the allegations of committing murder of one Karmi Ram, carrying his dead body in a trunk, and after

that throwing the dead body in Malana rivulet, and the trunk in the bushes, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed the following bail petitions in this Court:

(a) CrMPM 340 of 2019; filed by the petitioner was withdrawn by him and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial within three months.

(b) CrMPM 1826 of 2020; filed by the petitioner was withdrawn by him and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial within three months.

(c) CrMPM 169 of 2021 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2021.

In Para 17 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the

accused.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that Karmi Ram, deceased, who was real brother of the petitioner, went missing and subsequently,

his dead body was recovered from Malana Khud. Since he had inimical relations with the petitioner, as such, he was apprehended. After his arrest, he

made disclosure statement that after killing Karmi Ram, he had carried his dead body in a trunk and then on reaching near rivulet, taken out the dead

body from the trunk and had thrown it in the river and also threw the trunk from the hill. He also stated to the police that he can point out the place

from where he had thrown the dead body. Subsequently, he led the investigator to that place and police recovered the said trunk. Based on these

allegations, the Police registered the FIR mentioned above.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that during interim bail, the petitioner joined the investigation, and custodial interrogation would serve no

purpose whatsoever. The incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

On the contrary, the State contends that the Police have collected sufficient evidence against the bail petitioner and the co-accused. Another

argument on behalf of the State is that the accused is a proven habitual offender. Given his past conduct, the accused is likely to repeat the offense,

the crime is heinous, the accused is a risk to law-abiding people, and bail might send a wrong message to society.

REASONING:

Statements of the prosecution witnesses stand recorded. The petitioner has annexed all such statements. I have gone through the entire statements.

Forming an opinion for grant or refusal of bail needs appreciations of the statements of PW-3, PW-7, PW-12, PW-14, and PW-25. If this Court goes

on to appreciate these versions, then it would in all probability prejudice either of the parties. Even otherwise, reference to the report of laboratories

was also required, but it has not been annexed with the petition. Be that as it may, it shall not be appropriate to adjudicate the matter when the trial has

reached at an advance stage.

Counsel for the petitioner has also made several arguments. Still, given that this Court is not inclined to grant bail, on the reasons mentioned above,

discussion of the same will be an exercise in futility. Any detailed analysis of the evidence may again prejudice the case of the prosecution or the

accused.

Given above, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is dismissed.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

The petition is dismissed.