Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 527 (HP)

Rajesh @ Chhotu v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-04-03

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 23 of 2017, dated 26.03.2017, under Sections 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Sirmour, 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 resident of the place and 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 the intervening night of 25-26.03.2017 deceased was brought to Civil Hospital, Rajgarh, and the police was informed. Police after visiting the hospital went to the house deceased and got recorded the statement of his wife, Smt. Nisha (complainant) , under Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per her statement, the petitioner started altercation with her husband and fired a bullet on him. Subsequently, the deceased was shifted to the hospital where he died. As per the statement of the complainant, the petitioner was not having his own gun and he was used to take gun from someone else. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant a case was registered and the police investigation ensued. Photographs of the spot were taken and the spot map was prepared. Police also effected recoveries. The petitioner was arrested on 26.03.2017. The petitioner disclosed that the gun, which he used in committing the offence, is of his taya. As per the ballistic examination of the gun, the barrel of gun bears evidence of firing. On 22.06.2017 challan was presented in the learned Trial Court and now the case is fixed for 16.04.2018 for consideration on charge. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed. 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 and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the prosecution story itself provides clues that there is some different story and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the prosecution story itself provides clues that there is some different story and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He has argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice and by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period no fruitful purpose will be served. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration gravity of the offence and the way crime was committed by the petitioner, the application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is resident of the place and 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 considering the record, which has come on record, this Court finds that the deceased had died because of injuries sustained by him, which were the result of gun shot. The prosecution case is that the petitioner fired a gun shot on the deceased. prima facie , after going through the police record, it is found that the deceased died because of the bullet injury sustained by him and the scientific evidence also fortifies this position. Therefore, at this moment, in case the petitioner is released on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice and also looking the gravity of the offence the present is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 8. In view of the above, the petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.