Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1275 (HP)

VIKRAM SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-12-14

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 201 of 2009 dated 19.10.2009 registered at Police Station West, Shimla under Section 307 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 201 of 2009 dated 19.10.2009 and is in judicial custody. According to the petitioner, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on 19.10.2009 had injured Jagdish Chand, a co-villager when the injured asked the petitioner not to throw debris in front of the house of the injured. The matter was reported to the police and a case under Section 307 IPC has been registered. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. but the relief of pre-arrest bail was declined to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 19.11.2009. It has been submitted by the petitioner that petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2009. 3. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner on 19.10.2009 was dismantling his old house to raise new construction and debris was being placed where cow-dung was staked. There was exchange of hot words, injured abused the petitioner showing his status as belonging to para-military force. The petitioner was assaulted by the injured, who was armed with stick, which was snatched by the petitioner and in the scuffle, perhaps the stick hit the legs of the injured and injured fell down. The petitioner had no intention to inflict injuries on the person of the injured. The case at the most is under Section 325 IPC. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. At last, prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. He has submitted that the case was registered on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Meera Thakur daughter of Jagdish Chand injured. She has stated that her father objected the act of petitioner of throwing debris in front of his house. The petitioner gave beatings to her father with iron rod, who became unconscious. He has submitted that the case was registered on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Meera Thakur daughter of Jagdish Chand injured. She has stated that her father objected the act of petitioner of throwing debris in front of his house. The petitioner gave beatings to her father with iron rod, who became unconscious. It has been stated that seven injuries were found on the person of the injured, out of them, injuries No.1, 5 and 7 were grievous and others simple. The injury No.1 was opined to be dangerous to life being on the head. The weapon of offence has been recovered. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that keeping in view the injuries on the person of the injured and the circumstances in which the beatings were given to the injured, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has taken the stand that injured got the injuries when petitioner snatched the stick from injured and the injured fell down on the debris. In other words, injuries on the person of injured have not been denied. Jagdish Chand injured was medically examined and seven injuries were found on his person. The injury No.1 on the head was found grievous so also injuries No.5 and 7 by the doctor. 6. The petitioner is nephew of the injured and they are neighbours. As per the status report, the parties are not maintaining good terms. The parties are residing in the same village, it is not in the interest of even petitioner to release him on bail at this stage as the incident is recent one and took place only on 19.10.2009. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence and the manner in which the petitioner has inflicted injuries on the person of the injured as per investigating agency, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected. 7. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and shall have nothing to do with the merits of the case.