Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 563 (HP)

Sher Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-05-06

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking his release in case FIR No. 35 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 325, 382, 427, 506, 201 and 120B IPC and Sections 25/54-59 of the Arms Act, registered in Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 12.02.2019 Shri Lakhwinder Singh (complainant) made a written complaint to the police, wherein he alleged that he is owner of M/s Dashmesh Transport Company, Shitla Mata Mandir, Old Kasauli Road, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. As per the complainant, on 11.02.2019, at about 04:30 to 05:00 p.m., 60-70 persons reached on the spot and % persons were armed with guns. He has further stated that Pramod Sharma (co-accused) and one Pinkoo Sharma were leading the mob and they openly fired in the air. Promod Sharma and Pinkoo Sharma goaded the mob to kill the complainant, but somehow he managed to escape. The office of the complainant was damaged and cash amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lac fifty thousand) was stolen. One Lakhwinder @ Goldy, who was present in the office, was beaten up by the mob. The complainant recognized some of the persons of the mob and he named them in his complaint. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. On 12.03.2019 police prepared a spot map and photographs of the spot were clicked. Police effected the relevant recoveries and the SFSL team collected scientific samples from the spot. Injured Lakhwinder @ Goldy was medically examined. On 12.02.2019 Pramod (co-accused) and Ghanshyam were arrested. Some of the accused persons, in order to evade their arrest absconded, however, later on some of the accused persons were arrested. Police effected the relevant recoveries and the SFSL team collected scientific samples from the spot. Injured Lakhwinder @ Goldy was medically examined. On 12.02.2019 Pramod (co-accused) and Ghanshyam were arrested. Some of the accused persons, in order to evade their arrest absconded, however, later on some of the accused persons were arrested. On 17.02.2019 Manvir Singh (co-accused) made a disclosure statement to the police and got recovered sticks and rods. On the basis of his disclosure statement police prepared the spot map. Some other accused persons also made disclosure statements, which yielded into preparing spot map. Police also recovered empty cartridges, which were taken into possession. Co-accused Rishi also made a disclosure statement and led the police party to a secluded place near Ghaghar River. On the basis of the statement made by co-accused Rishi and on his identification, police recovered a pistol and two live cartridges, which were taken into possession by the police. Police also prepared the spot map of the recovery of these articles. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statement of the injured. As per the statement of the injured, 10-12 persons came to the office and gave beatings to him and he fell unconscious. It has come in the investigation that there exists a dispute qua management of canter/pickup union. Police also found that the accused persons and the petitioners alongwith others were involved in the crime. As per the Medical officer, the injured sustained grievous injuries. After the incident there is insecurity amongst the people of the society. The petitioners and the accused persons breached law and order and also attempted to destroy the evidence. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, there is apprehension that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner 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 has been falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner 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 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 and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he may be enlarged on bail. He has further argued that some of the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court, so the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in serious offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has further argued that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons took law in his own hands and also used deadly weapons to commit the crime. He has argued that people of the area are not feeling safe due to the act of the petitioner and other accused persons. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. So, at this stage, the bail application of the petitioner may 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 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. 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 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 considering the fact that recoveries in the case in hand are complete and as per learned Additional Advocate General nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, considering the fact that some of the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and the all other facts, which have come on record and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the petitioner is neither a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. This Court also finds that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place, the ends of justice will only be met in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, 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. 35 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 325, 382, 427, 506, 201 and 120B IPC and Sections 25/54-59 of the Arms Act, registered in Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., 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/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. 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/Police/authorities 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 is disposed of.