Major vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 11100 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Major vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 August, 2024

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) No. 1567 of 2024.

.

Reserved on: 29.07.2024

Date of Decision: 06.08.2024.

    Major                                                                         ...Petitioner

                                          Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh                                                    ...Respondent


    Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was

arrested vide FIR No. 264 of 2023, dated 08.09.2023, for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,

504, 506, 387 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 25 of the

Arms Act by Police Station Nalagarh. The petitioner is innocent

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete and

nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. He belongs to a

.

respectable family having deep roots in the society. The

petitioner has been behind the bars for about 10 months. The

co-accused have been released on bail. The petitioner would

abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may

impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the informant made a statement before the police

that he was working in Medical Device Park. He was sitting in his

car at about 4/5 pm on 08.09.2023. Three persons came near the

car, out of whom Rajinder Singh @ Jindu was identified by the

informant. Rajinder Singh and another person boarded the

informant's vehicle and sat with him in the rear seat. Rajinder

Singh stated that he wanted to get two vehicles attached, to

which the informant replied that there was no scope for

attaching the vehicle at the moment. Rajinder Singh threatened

the informant that he would get his work shut down. He also

asked the informant to pay him money. Rajinder Singh took out

his pistol. Gurmeet reached the spot and enquired as to why

Rajinder Singh was moving with the pistol. Rajinder Singh hit

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

Gurmeet's face with the butt of the pistol. All of them gave the

kicks and fist blows to the informant and Gurmeet. The police

.

registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police

arrested Rajinder Singh, who stated that he, Bal Krishan and the

petitioner Major Singh had gone to the informant for the search

of the work. An altercation started between the informant and

the accused. The police seized the vehicle and various other

articles. The result of the analysis was issued in which it was

mentioned that the pistol falls within the purview of the Arms

Act, 1959. The firing mechanism of the pistol was in working

order. The police have filed the challan and the matter is listed

for consideration of charge on 20.09.2024. No other case is

registered against the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate

General for the respondent/state.

4. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely

implicated. The other co-accused has been released on bail and

the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and

the petitioner be released on bail.

.

5. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General

for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is

involved in the commission of a heinous crime. He can

intimidate the witnesses in case of release on bail. Therefore, he

prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the

parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip

Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: -

"12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which nec-

essarily means that such discretion would have to be ex- ercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual

facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses be- ing tampered with or the apprehension of there be- ing a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of granting bail.

.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evi- dence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a

prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be con- sidered and it is only the element of genuineness

that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in

the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Ya- dav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken

into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:

"11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is

very well settled. The court granting bail should ex- ercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not

as a matter of course. Though at the stage of grant- ing bail a detailed examination of evidence and

elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also nec- essary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also be- fore granting bail; they are:

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering

with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in

support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upad-

hyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598:

2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)"

8.

A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs

Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

"7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

'9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere

with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion

judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if

.

released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.'

9. In the present case the accused Rajinder Singh had

not used the pistol to shoot the informant. He had only hit the

butt of the pistol on Gurmeet's face. This clearly shows that he

never intended to kill Gurmeet because had he intended to do so

he would have fired at Gurmeet to take away his life. Thus, prima

facie, an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not made

out. Similarly, there is no evidence that any person was put in

fear of death and grievous hurt. The informant never stated that

Rajinder Singh had shown the pistol to him or attacked him.

Thus, prima facie, an offence punishable under Section 387 of IPC

is also not made out.

10. The co-accused Rajinder Singh who was in

possession of a gun and who had used it to hit Gurmeet has been

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

granted bail by this Court; hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail

on the principle of parity.

.

11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed

and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of

₹1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the

petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: -

(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will

he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;

(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station

concerned and the Trial Court;

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the

Court; and (V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social

media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change.

12. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of

any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to

file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6382 )

13. The observation made herein before shall remain

confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing,

.

whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 6th August, 2024

(Chander)