High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 09 SHI CK 0432

Subhash Chand Sharma And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 28 September 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 1189, 1196 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 364 words

Vivek Singh Thakur, J

1.

Status report stands filed, wherein statement of Ghanshyam Sharma, complainant, recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC., leading to launching prosecution against the petitioner has been reiterated.

2.

Petitioners are facing trial under Sections 302, 376, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 132 of 2016, registered in Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

3.

In status report, it is submitted that the charge against the petitioners is substantiated by the recovery of articles/weapon of offence in pursuance to the statement of the petitioners made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, call detail reports, mobile phone, chemical analysis report and RFSL report with respect to blood found on the clothes of deceased as well as accused and also blood group as well as DNA of blood and human semen detected on the body of the deceased and that of the accused persons.

4.

The petitioners are in custody since 28th August, 2016. The trial is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.-II, Mandi, H.P., and has been listed for proper orders on 6th November, 2020.

5.

It is stated in the status report that out of 47 witnesses, 18 have been examined and 29 witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the Court does not found it fit to enlarge the petitioners on bail, hearing be expedited before the trial Court.

6.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances placed before me, as also nature and gravity of the offences, impact thereof and stage of the trial, I find that it is not a fit case for enlarging the petitioners on bail at this stage.

7.

In view of the above, the petitions are dismissed with a direction to the learned District & Sessions Judge Mandi to ensure listing of the case on the next date of hearing before him itself or any other Court available for conducting the trial and to ensure recording of evidence at the earliest, keeping in view the length of period of pendency of the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably before 30th April, 2021.