1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 356, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') vide FIR No. 20 of 2024 dated 02.03.2024 registered at Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is a young boy aged 20 years. He is not in a position to influence prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is a patient of epilepsy and requires care. The investigation is complete and the presence of the petitioner is not required for investigation. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose; hence, the petition.

2.The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received an intimation that a person was lying unconscious on the upper floor of the boot shop in Mehre Bazaar. The police went to the spot to verify the information and found the dead body of Dinesh on the spot. A post-mortem examination was conducted. Nobody suspected any foul play and the police conducted the proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the brother of the deceased filed an application before the police stating that Kamlesh had called him and told him that Dinesh was not picking up the mobile phone. He found afterwards that Dinesh had died. He conducted the inquiry and found that Shiv Kumar, Dilkhush and Arjun were present with Dinesh. The death of Dinesh was not natural and it appeared that all of them had killed Dinesh. They were also found missing after the incident. The police conducted the investigation and found that the petitioner Ravi Kumar had called Raghav, Dinesh, Jagdish and Vikas to play cards. They went to the room of Shiv. Radhey, Arjun and Arun also joined them at 8:5o pm. Arun left for his home. Arjun and Raghav went to the room of Shiv Kumar. Dilkhush also reached the room. They played cards till 10:15/10:30 pm. An interruption was caused by Radhey and Vikas asked him to leave the room. Ravi, Dinesh and Jagdish left the room whereas Arjun, Arun, Dinesh and Dilkhush remained in the room. Radhey left the room. Jagdish accompanied his cousin Vinod. Ravi, Dinesh, Jagdish and Vinod returned to the room of Shiv Kumar. Dilkhush went to the washroom and Raghav waited for him. Dinesh, Ravi, Jagdish, Arun and Arjun started playing cards. Raghav entered the room armed with a glass bottle. Vinod left the room. Raghav demanded money from Dinesh and hit his head with a glass bottle. Dinesh ran away from the room but Raghav caught him and brought him inside the room where he gave him beatings with a stick. He also removed 500 - 600 rupees of Dinesh. Arjun, Arun, Vikas and Jagdish left the room. Jagdish returned after some time and saw Dinesh lying on the floor. Raghav and Ravi @ Mirgi were inside the room. Ravi asked Jagdish to dispose of the body but Jagdish declined. Petitioner and Raghav threatened Jagdish. Petitioner also threatened Vikas. Raghav and Ravi were involved in the commission of crime. The final report of the postmortem and the report of the voice sample are still awaited. The petitioner has committed a heinous offence; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The crime was committed by Radhey and the petitioner has no role in the same. He was merely present in the room. Other persons were also present in the room but they were not implicated. The petitioner is aged 20 years and he is not likely to commit the crime in case of release on bail, hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. He can intimidate the witnesses in case of release on bail; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: -

"12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivolity of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:

"ii. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh ((2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas 1(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124.1.)"

8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

"7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

`9 It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

9. The present case has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10. The status report shows that the petitioner and Radhey remained in the room after other persons had left. Petitioner and Radhey had also threatened other persons. The petitioner had asked Jagdish to help in the disposal of the body. The deceased was alive when he was last seen with the petitioner and Radhey and was found dead after Jagdish returned. This circumstance by itself prima facie, shows that the petitioner is involved in the murder of the deceased.

11. It was submitted that the petitioner was merely present in the room and had not committed any crime. This is a matter of trial. The status report shows that the petitioner was present in the room with the deceased and Radhey and other persons had left. The deceased was found dead when Jagdish returned. Thus, it cannot be said that all the persons were present in the room when the deceased was killed.

12. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous and is punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the severity of the sentence, the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage.

13. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

14. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.