Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/2276/2020 of RAMESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF HP on 31 December 2020
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 2276 of 2020 Date of Decision: December 31, 2020 Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 2276 of 2020
Date of Decision: December 31, 2020
Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?[1]No.
...Respondent.
COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
Anoop Chitkara, Judge. (oral)
An under-trial prisoner, in custody since 29.03.2019, has come up before thisCourt under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seekingbail, under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC).
2.The police arrested the petitioner, in FIR No.56 of 2019, dated 29.03.2019,registered under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, in Police StationJogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offenses. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPCbefore this Court, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 2080 of 2020 but the samewas rejected vide order dated 25.11.2020.
3.The petitioner, who is aged 48 years and is facing trial for committingmurder, has come up before this Court seeking bail on the grounds that while underincarceration he suffered Covid-19 disease and now although he has recovered andtested negative but is under extreme anxiety and trauma.
4.In response to the petition, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned AdditionalAdvocate General has placed on record the status report, in which it is mentioned 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
that he had suffered Covid-19 infection on 20.11.2020 but now he has no symptomsand tested negative for Covid-19 on 7.12.2020.
5.The prayer of the petitioner regarding grant of interim bail, is covered by thejudgment of this Court passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1883 of 2020, titled Roop Singhversus State of Himachal Pradesh,wherein this Court has observed as follows:
“5.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and Mr. Vijay Chaudhary,learned Amicus Curiae and also gone through the data supplied by thelearned Amicus Curiae as well as Ms. Aishwarya Sethuraman, LawIntern. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae assisted by Ms.Aishwarya Sethuraman, Law Intern, has also drawn attention of theCourt to the guidelines issued by the Government of India in thisregard, information from the Mayo Clinic and Centre for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) and various other prestigious andmedical institutions. Without referring to such data, as on date, theknowledge about Covid-19 disease is slightly more than the view of aroom which one gets while peeping through its keyhole. Since it is anew disease, as such, findings are at the stage of hypothesis. Stillconsensus appears that the age of vulnerability starts from 55 yearsupwards. Furthermore, any person with co-morbidity conditions is alsovulnerable depending upon the nature of organs involved or diseasewhether it is auto immune or of metastatic carcinomatic growth.
6.As per the medical reports of the prison, the petitioner has noco-morbidity but is 58 years of age. Mr. Sunil Chauhan, learnedCounsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner isunder immense stress and anxiety and he further states that similar isthe position of the petitioner’s family members. He submits that incase this Court grants him one month’s interim bail to enable him tospend some time with his family members it would certainly releasehis anxiety and stress.
7.Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate Generalsubmits that in case this Court grants interim bail to the petitioner thenthe Court must specify the date on which the petitioner wouldsurrender and the same should be with bond amount of Rs. 1 lac withone surety in the like amount.
8.Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned Amicus Curiae has drawnattention to the bail order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No.2194 of 2020, titled as Rahul @ Vijay vs. State of Rajasthan, decidedon 15[th] May, 2020, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had giveninterim bail to a prisoner who was suffering from Covid-19.”
6.Given the age of the petitioner and the contention that he and his family areunder stress and anxiety and furthermore that he is apparently not of flight risk, thisCourt grants him interim bail for a period of two weeks, subject to the conditions
mentioned below with outer limit that he must furnish bail bonds well in time and ifhe fails to furnish the bail bonds in time, still he must surrender before the concernedJail by 18.1.2021 at 4.00 p.m. latest, and that in case he furnish bail bonds earlierthen immediately on the expiry of fourteen days.
7.Thus the petitioner shall be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing apersonal bond of Rs. One Lac only (INR 1,00,000/-) with one surety of a similaramount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/DutyMagistrate/the Court exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station whereFIR is registered undertaking therein to surrender before the Concerned Jail after thecompletion of fourteen days interim bail and under no circumstance later than 18[th]January, 2021, by 4.00 p.m. The furnishing of bail bonds shall be deemed acceptanceof all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner shall give details of AADHAR number, phonenumber(s) (if available), WhatsApp number (if available), e-mail (ifavailable), personal bank account(s) (if available), on the reverse page of thepersonal bonds and the officer attesting the personal bonds shall ascertain theidentity of the bail-petitioner, through these documents.
2. The Attesting officer shall on the reverse page of personal bonds,mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the above-mentioned information, whatever is available.
3. The petitioner shall not influence, threaten, browbeat, or pressurizethe witnesses and the Police officials.
4. The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise,directly or indirectly, to the Investigating officer, or any other personacquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing suchfacts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.
8. The learned Counsel representing the accused and the Officer in whosepresence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditionsof this order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or English.
12. In return for the interim protection from incarceration, the Court believes thatthe accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
The petition stands disposed of in the terms mentioned above.
Copy dasti.
(Anoop Chitkara),
December 31, 2020 (ps)