Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 90 (HP)

Fulgar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-01-15

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Case was registered on the basis of statement made by Sureshtha Devi widow of late Sh. Onkar Singh under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to her statement, her husband Onkar Singh have four brothers, Kalyan Singh, Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar. They were residing in the same house with their mother Smt. Meera Devi. Her husband and Devar (brother-in-law) were working at Delhi. Kalyan Singh used to stay in the house. Sunil Kumar was serving in the Indian Army. The marriage of her sister-in-law was solemnized on 28.10.2011. On 4.11.2011, the family members had gone to sleep. At about 11.45 P.M. they heard the noise of vehicle and loud songs. She switched on the light. Sunil Kumar also came out. She saw that the sons of her father-in-law’s brother (Taya), namely, Virender, Surender, Kulbhushan and Bhopal alias Bhupat coming out from the vehicle. She saw them with the help of torch. They were carrying Dandas and sharp edged weapons. Petitioner alongwith other accused also came out of the vehicle. They started hurling abuses. Onkar Singh and brothers-in-law Kalyan, Anil and Sunil came out of the house and tried to pacify them. Varinder Kumar came to their house with a Danda and threatened to kill them. He also inflicted injuries upon her and also on Veenu Devi her sister-in-law. Varinder Kumar and other accused gave beatings to her husband and her brothers-in-law. Her husband and Anil became unconscious. Accused ran away from the spot. Onkar Singh and Anil Kumar died due to the beatings given to them by the accused. It is in these circumstances; F.I.R. No. 153/2011 dated 5.11.2011 was registered under sections 302, 307, 326, 452, 148, 149, 324 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi against the petitioner and other co-accused. 2. The petitioner had also moved an application No. 156/2012 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, District Mandi. The same was rejected by him on 9.11.2012. 3. Mr. Ajay Thakur has strenuously argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has also argued that as per the evidence already collected by the Police, his client is not involved in the commission of offence. He further contended that all the recoveries have been effected by the Police and in the cross-F.I.R. the accused have already been enlarged on bail. He has also argued that as per the evidence already collected by the Police, his client is not involved in the commission of offence. He further contended that all the recoveries have been effected by the Police and in the cross-F.I.R. the accused have already been enlarged on bail. 4. Mr. Varinder Kumar Verma has vehemently opposed the bail petition. He has also argued that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he can win over the prosecution witnesses and can also temper with the prosecution evidence. 5. The police was directed to produce the record. The record has been produced and the same is perused. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully. 7. The incident has taken place, as per the police record, on 4.11.2011. It has not come in the record that the petitioner has given any beatings to the complainant party. What has been attributed to him, according to the police version, is that he was owner of the Bolero (vehicle). He created noise by accelerating the vehicle and also played the stereo loudly. No recovery etc. has been effected from him. Police has already completed the investigation and the recoveries of knife, Danda etc. have been effected. Petitioner has also received injuries, which have not been explained by the prosecution. According to the version of the police, petitioner has instigated the co-accused and has also not assisted the victims by moving them to hospital. Playing of loud music and not assisting the victims by moving them to hospital will not connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The accused persons in cross-F.I.R. have already been enlarged on bail and this aspect should have been taken into consideration by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court while considering the application. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail forthwith on his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of ` 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court in case F.I.R. No. 153/2011 under sections 302, 307, 326, 452, 148, 149, 324 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Jogindernagar, District Mandi. In case the petitioner threatens the prosecution witnesses or temper with the prosecution evidence, it shall be open to the police to move an application for cancellation of his bail. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.