Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1257 (HP)

Daljeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-07-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No. 46 of 2018, dated 31.03.2018, under Sections 279, 353, 332 and 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered in Police Station, Parwano, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 31.03.2018 Shri Subhash Chand (complainant), Driver in HRTC Depot Parwanoo, got recorded his statement before the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant, in his statement has stated that on 31.03.2018, at about 05:10 p.m., he was deployed in bus No. HP15A5066, which was enroute Kalka to Dharampur. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Conductor, was deployed in the same bus. There were 35/40 passengers inside the bus and when at about 06:05 p.m. there was traffic jam, a vehicle having registration No. PH65AR0-406 collided from the back side of the bus. Thereafter, three persons came out of the vehicle and started abusing and thrashing him. Jaswant Singh (one of the co-accused) hit him on his head with a stone and petitioner Daljeet Singh fired three bullets from his revolver. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. The spot was photographed and recoveries were effected. Police completed the sample and sealing formalities and the petitioner, alongwith other co-accused, was arrested on 01.04.2018 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation in the case stands completed and supplementary challan will be presented in the Court shortly. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner, alongwith others, was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is released on bail there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, which shall be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the application be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner, alongwith others, was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner have argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after carefully going through the records and the rival contentions of the parties, considering the prosecution story, the nature and the manner in which the incident alleged to have taken place and also the overall aspects of the case, including the fact that the complainant has suffered injuries, which are simple in nature, this Court finds that the petitioner, who is behind the bars for the last three months, cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, as neither he is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 46 of 2018, dated 31.03.2018, under Sections 279, 353, 332 and 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered in Police Station, Parwano, District Solan, H.P., he shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of.