Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 581 (HP)

PAWAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HP.

2010-03-23

SURINDER SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.-The petitioner has sought his bail by moving instant application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.144 of 2009, registered in Police Station, Gagret, under Sections 436, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner-accused failed to get anticipatory bail from this Court and also, after his arrest on 11th December, 2009 from the Court of Sessions, as such, he has approached this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the investigation file. 3. Precisely, the case as set up by the prosecution against the petitioner is that on 26th November, 2009, police party headed by Head Constable Sanjay Kumar, SIU, Una, on the receipt of a secret information that a big haul of country liquor kept without permit can be recovered from the cowshed of the petitioner, if raided immediately. The police found the petitioner present on the spot. Seeing the police party and apprehending that he would be caught red-handed, he took a jerry-cane and a tin full of kerosene oil and sprinkled it on the grass and wood stacked in the cowshed and set it on fire and proclaimed that the police would not be able to make a case against him as the liquor would get destroyed by fire. He also threatened the police and escaped from the spot. 4. Sanjay Kumar, Head Constable informed the Station House Office, Police Station, Gagret about the said incident. He dispatched additional police force to the spot. The fire was cooled-down and the said Head Constable, recovered 479 IMFL from the cattle-shed. Since the petitioner prevented the police from discharging their official duty and set the cowshed on fire, as such, a case under the aforesaid Sections was registered. 5. The petitioner applied for the pre-arrest bail before the Court of Sessions. It was rejected even by the High Court decided it vide order passed on 9th December, 2009. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested. 6. The enlargement of the petitioner on bail has been opposed on various grounds, firstly, that the petitioner is a habitual offender, secondly, he has scant respect for law and thirdly, he has a criminal history against him and also that he is of a desperate character because of that no one comes forward to help the police and depose against him in the Court. 7. 7. Shri Ajay Kochhar. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has refuted the above allegations. According to him, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat in this case, on account of business rivalry in the neighbourhood. The police have been making false cases against him indiscriminately. The allegations made in the present FIR are incorrect. According to him, although various cases under the Excise Act were registered against him, but he was acquitted by the learned trial Court. To substantiate his version, he has filed the copies of judgments with statements of witnesses in three cases instituted on 18th April, 2001, 25th October, 2002 and 27th February, 2007, whereby the petitioner was acquitted. 8. On the perusal of the record, I do find that inasmuch as 10 cases were registered against the petitioner at different occasions, including the present one in various Police Stations in District Una, the details thereof are as under: 9. In cases at Sr. Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 the petitioner was acquitted, whereas other cases are either under investigation or sub-judice in the Court. In case at Sr. No.5 the petitioner was booked for carrying one consignment of 42 bottles of liquor in a vehicle. On having been chased by the police he had run over pedestrians, as such, a case under Section 304-A IPC and under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh was registered against him. Besides this, the petitioner is also alleged to have tress-passed and criminally intimated the complainant and caused injuries to him in a case which was registered vide FIR No.23 of 2009 and figures at Sr. No.7 above. 10. Looking at the criminal history of the petitioner, the offence committed and by balancing both these factors between the freedom of the petitioner-accused and also in the interest of society, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled for the bail as he has been committing various crimes with Sr. No. Case FIR No. Dated Under Section Police Station 1. 99/2000 5.10.2000 61-1-14 Ex. Act Gagret. 2. 55/201 18.5.2001 61-1-14 Ex. Act & 207, 181, 196 MV Act. Gagret. 3. 1/2002 01.01.2002 61-1-14 Ex. Act Gagret. 4. 106/2006 16.6.2006 61-1-14 Ex. Act Gagret. 5. 253/2006 25.11.2006 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC & 61-1-14 Ex. Act. Haroli. 6. 34/2007 21.2.2007 61-1-14 Ex. Act Amb 7. 23/2009 4.2.2009 451, 323, 427, 506 IPC Gagret. Act Gagret. 2. 55/201 18.5.2001 61-1-14 Ex. Act & 207, 181, 196 MV Act. Gagret. 3. 1/2002 01.01.2002 61-1-14 Ex. Act Gagret. 4. 106/2006 16.6.2006 61-1-14 Ex. Act Gagret. 5. 253/2006 25.11.2006 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC & 61-1-14 Ex. Act. Haroli. 6. 34/2007 21.2.2007 61-1-14 Ex. Act Amb 7. 23/2009 4.2.2009 451, 323, 427, 506 IPC Gagret. 8. 28/2009 11.2.2009 61-1-14 Ex. Act Gagret. 9. 143/2009 26.11.2009 61-1-14 Ex. Act and 201 IPC. Gagret. 10 144/2009 26.11.2009 436, 353, 506 IPC Gagret impunity even when the matters were pending against him and he was on bail. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed. Cr.M.Ps. No.45 and 46 of 2010. Allowed.