Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 44 (HP)

JEEVAN v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-03-16

M.R.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT M.R; Verma, J. (Oral) - This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved by the accused-petitioner (here after referred to as the accused) for his release on bail in case FIR No. 20/2004 dated 3.2.2004, under Sections 307, 147 and 212, Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur. 2. Case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 3.2.2004 when complainant Rakesh Kumar was handing over some coins to Bablu at the shop of Bablu, a car having three or four occupants stopped on the spot. One of the occupants of the car was one Moni having a shop of cassettes etc. near the school. The said occupants immediately assaulted the complainant and one of them gave knife blows to him and others gave him fist and foot blows and bolted away. The matter was reported to the police and investigation followed. On investigation, it was found that the accused and his companions had come to the spot in Car No. HP-33-9554 and assaulted the complainant and caused six injuries to his person, five of which were caused with sharpened weapon and one with blunt weapon. The assailants were found, the accused, Parveen Rana and Gopal Bharti. One Shashi Bhushan was found to have helped the accused and his co-accused in absconding after the commission of the crime. On investigation it was found that the accused and his companions planned to beat Rakesh Kumar at the behest of Moni alias Kapil Dev as there were strained relations between the victim and accused Kapil Dev. It was also found that the injuries with the sharp edged weapon i.e. knife were caused to the complainant by the accused whereas others gave him fist and foot blows. AII other accused are already on bail. The application preferred by the accused for grant of bail had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on the premises that it was the accused that was armed with the sharp edged weapon and inflicted multiple injuries on the person of the complainant and he is involved in various criminal cases. AII other accused are already on bail. The application preferred by the accused for grant of bail had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on the premises that it was the accused that was armed with the sharp edged weapon and inflicted multiple injuries on the person of the complainant and he is involved in various criminal cases. The present bail application has been moved by the accused on the ground that he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case and is; thus innocent person belonging to a respectable family and belongs to a district other than the district where the occurrence took place. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General and have also gone through the police report and the investigation records. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the co-accused in the case have already been released on bail, therefore, principle of parity is attracted and otherwise also there is no material to connect the accused with the commission of the offences allegedly committed by him. 5. A perusal of the record n6t only reveals that the accused has caused injuries to the victim-complainant but it also reveals that the injuries caused to the victim with the sharp edged weapon were caused by the accused. He is in fact the main actor of causing the injuries. It cannot, therefore, be said at this stage that the accused is innocent or the evidence against him is of weak nature. On the contrary, he is prima facie shown involved in the commission of a serious offence and is the prime accused whose act in the commission of the crime are not at par with that of those who have been released on bail. 6. It also emerges from the records that the accused is involved in eight other cases, two of which are inter alia under Section 307, IPC, five other inter alia for causing injuries with sharp as well as blunt weapons and one for rioting, confinement and criminal intimidation. Registration of these cases against the accused is not in dispute but it is claimed that in two of these cases he has already been acquitted and in others he can also not be presumed guilty unless he is convicted. Registration of these cases against the accused is not in dispute but it is claimed that in two of these cases he has already been acquitted and in others he can also not be presumed guilty unless he is convicted. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the accused bail cannot be refused to the accused simply because he is involved in many criminal cases. 7. One of the considerations which invariably arise while considering grant or refusal of the bail is the conduct and character of the accused. If from his past conduct or manner of committing the offence it is prima facie made out that he is a man of desperate character and habitual of indulging in illegal activities it will be a valid consideration for denial of bail. The very purpose of the administration of criminal justice is to maintain order and peace in the society. From the previous conduct as reflected in registration of various criminal cases against the accused, he falls within the category of a person who is shown to be of desperate character. 8. The manner in which the accused is prima facie shown to have assaulted the victim particularly the fact that the accused otherwise had nothing to do with the complainant and acted at the behest of another person in causing injuries to the victim, amply suggests that the accused: if released on bail will indulge in the commission of the offences. This fact is also against the grant of bail to the accused. 9. In the totality of the circumstances, appearing against the accused, it can also not be said that if released on bail he will not terrorise and threaten the prosecution witnesses. 10. In view of the above, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail. 11. As a result, this application merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.