Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 861 (HP)

Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-11-26

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2020
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. 165 of 2020, dated 17.11.2020, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh 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 him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. The prosecution story, as emerges from the records, is that on 16.11.2020, an incident, regarding a gun shot, fired at Garg Home Stay, Kotli, was reported at police station. Consequently, ASI Leeladhar alongwith other police officials left for Garg Home Stay and on reaching there, recorded the statement of complainant Umesh Kumar, wherein he alleged that he is lease holder of Garg Home Stay and obtained the same around one month ago, for a period of one year, from one Jeet Kumar. On 16.11.2020 around 9:15 p.m., when he and Abhinav (Cook of Home Stay) were cooking food in the kitchen, accused Hem Raj, who was under the influence of liquor, came there and started abusing them, since the chairs of the Home Stay were laid on the road, leading to his house. Thereafter, the accused left for his house. However, after some time he again came to his lintel and started abusing them and also threatened them by saying that since he is an Ex-serviceman, he can kill them. When the complainant came out of the kitchen, the accused, without any reason, fired a gun shot at him. However, the gun shot hit the door and the complainant sustained minor injury on his left leg. Consequently, FIR No. 165 of 2020, dated 17.11.2020, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act came to be registered against the accused. However, the gun shot hit the door and the complainant sustained minor injury on his left leg. Consequently, FIR No. 165 of 2020, dated 17.11.2020, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act came to be registered against the accused. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence, and there is possibility that in case at this stage he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper/hamper with the prosecution case. 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(s), carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that on account of the nuisance, being created by the persons of Home Stay, study of the children of the petitioner was being hampered and their privacy was being disturbed and when the petitioner requests the complainant to stop the nuisance, he did not bother, rather, the complainant alongwith the other persons attacked him and the petitioner, in his self defence, fired a gun shot and that too, in air. He has argued that the petitioner is Ex-serviceman and law abiding citizen and he has small children and there is no one in his family, except him, to look after them, as the wife of the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper/hamper with the prosecution case, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper/hamper with the prosecution case, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. At this stage, taking into consideration the manner, in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as he is permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner is behind the bars and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and also considering the overall facts, which have come on records, and without discussing them elaborately at this stage, since trial is pending adjudication, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Consequently, the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 165 of 2020, dated 17.11.2020, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, is forthwith ordered to be released on bail, in this case, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and will appear before the Court. 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. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.