Author- Rupali Manjhi, Lovely Professional University

CASE DETAILS

i)            Judgment Cause Title / Case Name	Ramesh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
ii)            Case Number	case FIR No. 56 of 2019,
iii)            Judgement Date	6 March, 2024
iv)            Court	Himachal Pradesh High Court
v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench	Vivek Singh Thakur
vi)            Author / Name of Judges	Vivek Singh Thakur
vii)            Citation	Cr.M.P. (M) No. 335 of 2024
viii)            Legal Provisions Involved	Section 302 IPC, Section 201 IPC, Section 109 IPC, Section 111 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 439 CrPC, Section 154 CrPC, Section 27 Evidence Act

INTRODUCTION

According to the Black’s Dictionary”Procuring the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the time and place designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court”^[1]. The Bail is the legal process by which the accused is allowed to stay out of jail. They are.

Several factors, such as the seriousness of the offence, the heinousness of the crime, the evidence, etc, were taken into consideration while granting bail. The trial has been postponed due to legal process delays, which makes matters worse when the accused is held for a long time.

In the case of Ramesh vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh, it raises similar issues. In this case, the petitioner Ramesh, is seeking bail after spending over four years in jail before the trial has started. This case will determine whether the accused person should be granted bail despite the serious charges and the lengthy trial delay.

This case is very important as it provides the guidelines for the courts to handle situations like this when a person is already in jail for a long time and a trial has not been started. This case also highlights the person’s right to a speedy trial.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case begins with the lodging of an FIR  in March 2019. There was the death of a man named Kartar Singh. Kartar Singh faced severe mental health challenges, and he was fatally murdered by a group of individuals. Among the perpetrators was a man named Ramesh. As per the complaint, Kartar Singh was a regular visitor to the temple, where he frequently engaged in heated disputes with Baba Badri Vishal Giri, the temple priest. On the day of his death, he was indeed assaulted by Ramesh and others.

Investigation done by the police identified significant evidence against Ramesh, which led to charges of murder. In consequence, Ramesh was charged with serious offences such as murder Section 302 of IPC^[2], criminal conspiracy Section 120B^[3] of IPC, and causing disappearance of evidence Section 201^[4] of IPC.

This raised questions regarding criminal conspiracy and evidence tampering. The prosecution claimed Ramesh and his accomplices planned and executed the attack that led to Kartar Singh’s death from severe injuries. The charges against Ramesh were supported by substantial forensic evidence, including DNA reports, which were found during the investigation.

Ramesh had spent over four years in jail, but the trial had not taken place, which had been postponed multiple times. Only 28 of 45 witnesses had been examined. His lawyers argued that the lengthy delay and his time in detention were valid reasons to grant him bail. The case then reached the High Court, which had to decide whether to grant bail, considering both the factors of the delay and the seriousness of the crime.

Procedural Background of the Case

1. FIR and Arrest: In March 2019, Kartar Singh was accused of being beaten by a group of people, including Ramesh and Fanwas to address the incident. Following a police investigation, Ramesh was taken into custody and accused of murder as well as several other serious crimes.
2. The Charges and Investigation:

After a various thorough investigation, the police obtain the medical reports and other supporting documents. Following the filing of a charge sheet, the court formulated charges of Sections 201 (destruction of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Delayed Trials:

There had been a delay in the trial. Only 28 out of 45 witnesses were examined. His lawyer argued that Ramesh’s detention was unfair and a violation of his rights as he had been behind bars for more than four years.

4. A bail petition:

After the prolonged period of detention and delays in the trial, Ramesh filed a petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for bail.

Factual Background of the Case

Despite his mental health problems, Kartar Singh was brutally beaten to death by a group including Ramesh. As per the forensic evidence, including DNA tests and autopsy results, Singh died due to the beating. Police also gathered testimony and evidence that showed pre-planning, which resulted in charges of criminal conspiracy against Ramesh and other individuals.

RAISED LEGAL ISSUES

1. Does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution’s guarantee of a fair trial get in the way of the petitioner’s more than four-year pre-trial detention and trial delays?
2. Should the severity of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC and the strong circumstantial evidence deny the petitioner bail despite lengthy pre-trial detention?

PETITIONER ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s lawyer stated that there was sufficient evidence of Ramesh’s non-involvement and that the accusations against him were mainly based on circumstantial evidence. The lawyer pointed out that Ramesh had been imprisoned for more than four years and that the trial had been delayed, This slow process highlighted the bail request. The petitioner sought release mainly due to the lengthy pre-trial detention and trial delays.

Counsel pointed to earlier instances where bail was granted in comparable circumstances.

In the case of Ram Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023^[5], and Rampal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023^[6] After being detained for more than four years, the accused in this case was granted bail. The court noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon because only a few witnesses had been questioned by then. As a result, the trial’s delay was viewed as a valid reason for granting bail. iInthe case of Sanma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023^[7] After being detained for more than three years released on bail. The court noted that only 22 of 30 witnesses had testified, indicating significant trial delays despite the serious allegations. The delay in proceeding with the trial played a significant role in granting bail.

These cases demonstrated that everyone has the right to a fair trial. According to the petitioner’s lawyer, the right to a speedy trial is fundamental and protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, which prohibits unfair detention. The petitioner brought up delays in the case, pointing out that key witnesses had yet to testify.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)^[8] provision for hiding evidence, is very relevant as the defendant allegedly attempted to hide the evidence following the murder.
2. Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)^[9] punishes those who aid in criminal acts and the petitioner took part in the lethal assault on Singh.
3. Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)^[10] pertains to the penalties for assistance; the petitioners were engaged in aiding others to assault the deceased.
4. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)^[11] emphasizes scenarios where multiple persons have a shared criminal aim, illustrating the collaborative participation of the petitioner and their associates in the attack.
5. Section 439 of CrPC^[12] The request for bail relies on this part of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which permits bail in non-bailable offences under certain conditions.
6. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)^[13] pertains to the lodging of aPetitionerormation Report (FIR) when a cognizable crime occurs. The FIR in this matter was filed following a complaint from the deceased’s father, which initiated the investigation.
7. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Recovery of Material Evidence) permits the consideration of statements given by an accused if those statements result in the unearthing of material evidence. It was crucial to obtain the weapons before evidence related to the crime.
8. Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Application to DNA Evidence)^[14] Forensic analysis and DNA profiling, which involve the evaluation of blood samples and other materials, were essential in the relation between the petitioner to the crime through circumstantial evidence by Section 27.

JUDGEMENT

The court granted Ramesh bail, emphasizing the lengthy delays in the trial, during which only 28 oensure5 witnesses had been questioned, coupled with no foreseeable likelihood of concluding the trial. Despite the serious nature of the accusations under Sections 302, 201, 109, 111, and 34 of the IPC, the petitioner w,  as in custard, nearly five years.

The court emphasized that the delay, expanded by the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted considering the petitioner for bail. The petitioner argued that the case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence. The court referred to previous cases where bail was granted due to long detention periods, highlighting that the petitioner was entitled to bail after such an extended period of pre-trial detention.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Right to Bail Dto due to Delay in Trial: Ramesh Kumar, the applicant, has been imprisoned for nearly five years, and the trial has encountered delays with no clear resolution expected. The court ruled out that it is very unjust or unfair to keep someone in pre-trial detention for a very long time. It is a violation of their constitutional right to personal liberty.

The petitioner is not liable for the trial delays. The setbacks were linked to external elements, such as the pandemic and slow progress in the legal system. Since the petitioner was not responsible for the delays, this situation strengthened his case for bail.

Previous Cases and Judicial Precedents: The court reviewed similar situations in which individuals detained for a lengthy duration were allowed bail before the completion of their trial. The court decided that, even with the crime’s seriousness, delaying the trial justified allowing bail for the petitioner.

GUIDELINES

The conditions set by the Court for the petitioner’s release on bail are:

• Personal Bond and Surety:

The petitioner had to give a personal bond for ₹1,50,000 and submit one surety of the same amount to the trial court or Sessions Judge. This will ensure that the petitioner will follow the terms of the bail and will appear during the trial.

• Availability for Trial:

The petitioner has to be available to the police, investigation agency, or court when it is required, ensuring cooperation in the investigation or trial process.

• Non-Interference with Witnesses:

The petitioner must refrain from attempting to influence or intimidate witnesses or impede evidence in any manner

• No Repetition of Crime:

The petitioner must not commit any similaroffencess during the bail period.

• Appropriate Use of Freedom:

The petitioner must not exploit the freedoms provided by the court and is required to follow the law.

• No Avoidance:

The petitioner is to refrain from going outside the jurisdiction or trying to escape from justice.

• Alert Regarding Address Modifications:

The petitioner is required to inform the police or court about any updates to their address, landline, or mobile number so that he can be traced easily.

• Not going out of India Without Authorization:

The petitioner cannot exit India without the court’s permission, guaranteeing their presence for the trial.

• Violation of Conditions

If the petitioner breaches any of these conditions, their bail will be revoked, and they may be taken into custody. The prosecution might ask the relevant court to revoke bail.

OBITER DICTA

The main obiter dicta in the judgment are as follows:

1. The judge remarked that each bail case ought to be evaluated on its own merits, and previous bail decisions may not apply due to the unique facts and circumstances in each situation.
2. Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shaheen Welfare Assn. vs. Union of India (1996), the judge underscored that individuals cannot be kept in detention indefinitely when there is no real likelihood of a swift trial, highlighting the entitlement to a timely trial.
3. The judge referenced Jagjeet’s offences. Ashish Mishra (2022) stated that prolonged detention without trial violates the accused’s right to personal liberty, stressing that holdups must not result in indefinite confinement.
4. The judge stressed that the trial’s speed should be a key consideration for bail requests, especially for those who have been detained for an extended period, underscoring the importance of timely legal proceedings.

CONCLUSION

In this case, the petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C After evaluating the situation, characterized by the petitioner’s prolonged detention (over 4 years and 11 months) and the efficiency of the legal processes, the court decided to grant bail, emphasizing the right to a fair and timely trial. Despite the presence of circumstantial evidence and serious allegations, the court regarded the trial delay as a key factor, permitting the petitioner to secure bail under certain conditions to ensure his appearance and avoid hindrance to the trial.

^[1]Black’s Law Dictionary 177 (4th ed.)

^[2]IndiaCode:SectionDetails.www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=338.

^[3]IndiaCode:SectionDetails.www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=127.

^[4]IndiaCode:SectionDetails.www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688§ionId=46310§ionno=201&orderno=228.

^[5] indiankanoon.org/doc/44318075

^[6]“Rampal@Ramphalv.StateofHimachalPradesh2023.”Indiankanoon,indiankanoon.org/doc/190169943.

^[7]“Sanmav.StateofHimachalPradesh 2023.” Indian Kanoon, indiankanoon.org/doc/161702216.

^[8]IndiaCode:SectionDetails.www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688§ionId=46310§ionno=201&orderno=228.

^[9]IndiaCode:SectionDetails.www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=114.

^[10] “IPC Section 111 – Liability of Abettor When One Act Abetted and Different Act Done.” A LawyersReference,devgan.in/ipc/section/111/#:~:text=Description,he%20had%20directly%20abetted%20it.

^[11]IndiCodeSectionDetails.www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=35.

^[12] “CrPC Section 439 – Special Powers of High Court or Court of Session Regarding Bail.” A Lawyers Reference, Devgan.in/crpc/section/439.

^[13] “CrPC Section 154 – Information in Cognizable Cases.” A Lawyers Reference, Devgan.in/crpc/section/154.

^[14] “Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act.” Indiankanoon, indiankanoon.org/doc/1312051.