Subhash Chand vs State of Haryana

M.L. Koul, J.

In an admitted criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the appellants, Subhash Chand, Krishan Kumar, Bal Krishan and Satish Kumar alias Sanju, wherein the appellant Subhash Chand stands convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the other appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, appellants Bal Krishan and Satish Kumar are seeking bail during the pendency of the appeal on the ground that the genesis of the incident is ascribed to a quarrel which took place between appellant Krishan Kumar and Bal Krishan on the one hand and Sanjeev Kumar (PW. 10) and Manoj Kumar (PW.11) and deceased Anil Kumar on the other at 3 P.M. on 16.11.1994 on the question of playing cricket in the school ground. The two above named appellants Bal Krishan and Satish Kumar along with the other appellants Subhash Chand and Krishan Kumar were all standing in front of the house of Subhash Chand armed with lathis to waylay the deceased, and Sanjeev Kumar (PW.10) and Manoj Kumar (PW.11) as well.

According to the said appellants prior to the occurrence Manoj Kumar had no unpleasant clash with the appellants and the fatal blow to deceased is attributed to the appellant Subhash Chand who does not figure in the episode and by relation is third degree collateral of Krishan Kumar and Bal Krishan appellants who were initially involved in the incident. Both the parties being young blooded youth might have clashed instantaneously without waiting for two hours to set the scores. There was a delay in lodging of the report which is fatal to the case itself. The place of occurrence had also been concealed and it is the blood stained earth which is to be examined to determine the blood group of the victim. In nut shell for grant of bail to the said appellants all the merits of the case have been again reiterated what are raised in the appeal as well.

Heard Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State, bestowed our thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.

It was argued by Mr. Cheema learned counsel for the appellants that Bal Krishan and Satish Kumar did not cause any injury to the deceased and if at all any injury was caused by them that was to the prosecution witness.

We are afraid as to whether the second bail application moved on behalf of the appellants could be taken into consideration when a prototype bail application moved earlier was withdrawn by the appellants on 17.9.1996 for unknown reasons and the same was dismissed as not pressed. No fresh ground has been raised for grant of bail to the appellants. Rather the learned defence counsel has pressed an argument in motion to say that the appellants who have caused injuries to the witness cannot be attributed to have killed the deceased. We are again afraid to accept this argument of the learned defence counsel for the fact that the appellants with common object in one go killed the deceased and caused injuries to the witness as well. Once the object is common to kill a man it is immaterial that in that object or pursuit some of the appellants killed the deceased and others were able to cause injuries to the witness only. Had any of the injuries caused to the witness by the appellants been fatal that could also cause his death. It is not all along the actual part played by an a accused to be taken into consideration for holding him guilty of murder, but it is the intention with which he played the part in the commission of the crime. Once the learned defence counsel has reiterated all the grounds taken in the appeal for consideration, therefore, in that eventuality the Court cannot make any observation about the matter which would prejudice the main appeal on merits of the case.

It is the recognised principle of criminal law even contained in the relevant criminal statute that in cases of murder where the accused have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment no bail can be granted to them even temporarily during the pendency of the appeal except, firstly, on the medical grounds when the relevant medical aid is not available for a particular disease with which such an accused is suffering in the jail; secondly, on account of some natural calmaity taking place in his house or family and, thirdly, if some of his kith and kin dies or is suffering from such a serious disease where the presence of the accused to take care of a patient is essential. In the present case none of the aforesaid grounds have been raised by the appellants for grant of bail.

We have to preserve the judicial equilibrium for the maintenance of the judicial administration and the people should know that justice is not only being done but it appears to have been done. Once the accused is convicted for an offence under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC by a Sessions Judge the judicial propriety demands that the judgment unless set at naught is allowed to hold good for all the purposes. Therefore, at random bails are not required to be given in such cases to the convicts lest a bad signal goes around among the people that even convicts of murder cases get bail on demand. The appellants are seeking bail on the merits of the case which have already been raised for consideration in the appeal.

The trial Court has convicted the appellants after full fledged trial and his judgment cannot be brushed aside for the purposes of bail unless the arguments in appeal are heard and the Court comes to a prudent and reasonable conclusion that the accused are innocent and entitled to acquittal. According to the findings of the trial Court, the appellants Bal Krishan and Satish Kumar have definitely played part in the commission of the crime when one person has been killed and another has been injured. He has further observed that the act committed by them is common in nature and all of them are connected with the commission of the crime.

Hence, without discussing the merits of the case, we feel that Bal Krishan and Satish Kumar appellants are not entitled to bail and their bail application is rejected.