Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 48 (HP)

KULDEEP THAKUR v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-03-16

M.R.VERMA

body2005
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. : - This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for his release on bail in case FIR No. 292/2004, dated 25.12.2004, under Sections 307, 342, 506, 34, 212, IPC, Section 182 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 27 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Dhali. 2. Allegations against the accused are that on 25.12.2004 at about 11 a.m. when Inder Singh alongwith Sanju, Pankaj, Bablu and Surinder was sitting in his vehicle No. HP-02A-3072 at Taxi Union, Sanjauli, the accused alongwith his co-accused Surender came there in a Maruti Van. Co-accused Surender asked Inder Singh to have some discussion with him in the matter of beating of his brother by the accused and other persons and for compromising the matter. Inder Singh, however, refused to settle the matter as desired by Surinder. On this, the accused and co-accused Surinder started beating Inder Singh with fist blows causing injury over his left eye. In the meanwhile, co-accused Surinder asked the accused to bring sword from the vehicle in which they had reached on the spot and the accused complied with started giving sword blows to Inder Singh thereby causing injuries to him. In the meanwhile, a few persons came on the spot and the accused alongwith his co-accused bolted away from the spot. After about 10 minutes they came back to the spot and forcibly put Inder Singh in their vehicle and confined him therein alongwith one Surinder @ Dandu and took them to Malyana where another co-accused Dalip administered beatings to the confined persons and also threatened them to be killed. Thereafter, Inder Singh and Surinder were taken in the same vehicle to a clinic where injured were forcibly made to get the treatment and thereafter they were taken back in the vehicle and left off at Sanjauli Chowk. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR came into being. The investigation in the matter is complete and a charge-sheet has already been submitted against the accused persons. The accused and his co-accused are presently in judicial custody. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR came into being. The investigation in the matter is complete and a charge-sheet has already been submitted against the accused persons. The accused and his co-accused are presently in judicial custody. The present application has been moved by the accused on the grounds that the accused is not in any manner involved in the attack on Inder Singh, i.e. the complainant and has been falsely booked in the case and is in custody for the last more than two months and is trying to reform himself. It is also claimed that there is none to look after his aged parents, one of whom is under medical treatment. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the police report and the investigation records. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that there is no material whatsoever to show involvement of the accused in the common of the offences alleged to have been committed by him and, thus, for want of any material against him, he deserves to be released on bail. 5. A perusal of the record particularly the statements of the complainant and the eye-witnesses, namely Pankaj Kashyap, Vinod Sharma and Surinder Thakur, coupled with the medical opinion, prima-facie, not only reveals the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences but also reveals that he is the person who caused injuries to the complainant with the sword blows and as per the medical opinion, were dangerous to life. It cannot, therefore, be said that the accused is not involved in the common of the offences alleged to have been committed by him and his co-accused. 6. A perusal of the record further reveals that the accused persons in the case are, prima facie, habitual offenders. 13 cases under various provisions of Indian Penal Code had been registered against co-accused Surinder, 4 cases against co-accused Dalip and two cases against the accused had been registered. This multiplicity of registration of cases against the accused coupled with the gravity of the offences now committed by him and severity of punishment provided therefor, are the factors which must weigh against the grant of bail to the accused 7. This multiplicity of registration of cases against the accused coupled with the gravity of the offences now committed by him and severity of punishment provided therefor, are the factors which must weigh against the grant of bail to the accused 7. It also emerges from the records that the crime has been committed by the accused and his accomplices with a view to force Inder Singh not to pursue a case regarding beating of his brother by them. It also prima facie emerges that Dinesh Chopra, one of the prosecution witnesses, has been receiving telephonic calls not to give any help to the police in the case and in the event of his doing so he would be done to death. These acts are clearly reveals that the accused had attempted and can still attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence by terrorizing the witnesses. Therefore, if released on bail, the accused in all probabilities is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Further, the accused though claims that during his incarceration during the last two months, he has been trying to reform him but this bare allegation is not enough to assume that if released on bail the accused will not indulge in the commission of offences. 8. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the brother of the accused is also in judicial custody in the case and there is none to look after the parents of the accused one of whom is under medical treatment and requires attention. The plea as raised by itself is no ground for grant of bail. Every criminal or an accused has some important social obligations to perform and his incarceration will evidently disable him from performing such obligations. Such a disability having been caused by operation of law in the larger interest of justice and the society is no ground for grant of bail. 9. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail. 10. As a result, this application merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.