Virender Singh vs State Of H.P
2024 Latest Caselaw 9777 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Virender Singh vs State Of H.P on 18 July, 2024

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:5408 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP(M) No. 1204 of 2024

.

Reserved on: 08.07.2024

Date of Decision: 18.07.2024.

    Virender Singh                                                               ...Petitioner





                                           Versus
    State of H.P.                                                                ...Respondent


    Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate

General with ASI Bhaga Ram, Police Station Nurpur.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the police

registered an FIR No. 130 of 2024, dated 27.05.2024, for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 188

and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The name of the

petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR but he is being

implicated based on the statement made by the co-accused. The

petitioner is a teacher having no concern with the commission of

the crime. The petitioner is apprehending his immediate arrest.

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

The petitioner is innocent and he would abide by all the terms

and conditions, which this Court may impose. Hence, it was

.

prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be

released on pre-arrest bail.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the police received information on 26.05.2024 that

Hakam Chand was shot by some unknown person. He was

brought to Civil Hospital, Nurpur in an injured condition. The

police went to the Hospital for verification of the information.

Hakam Chand was found undergoing treatment. He made a

statement to the police that on 26.05.2024, he, his wife and

daughter were present at home. He was taking food at 10-10:15

pm when somebody pelted a stone in his courtyard. He came out

and found that Guru alias Gurbachan and Sangu were present

outside. They shot at the informant due to which, the informant

sustained injuries. Petitioner's wife, daughter and neighbours

reached the spot. Guru@Gurbachan was working as a Mason

while constructing the house of the informant. His services were

terminated because he had an evil eye on the informant's

daughter. Gurbachan quarrelled with the informant's son. The

informant had a civil dispute with Sangu's father. The police

registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. Police

arrested Sangu and Gurbachan. They produced a gun and

.

identified the same as the gun, which was used for shooting at

the informant. They also identified the place, where the gun was

concealed by them. Balkar Singh @ Sanghu revealed that he had

purchased the gun from the present petitioner for ₹14,500/-. He

had paid ₹8,000/- and the remaining amount of ₹6,500/- was to

be paid by Gurbachan. They scraped the gun's number and

repaired it. They deposited their licensed gun with the police

during the Lok Sabha election and used the gun purchased by

them from the petitioner. As per the interrogation of Virender

Singh, he had found a defective gun while demolishing his old

house. He had sold the gun to Balkar Singh for ₹14,500/-. The

result of the analysis is awaited; hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was

falsely implicated. As per the case of the prosecution, the

petitioner had only sold the gun as a scrap. It was defective and

the petitioner could not have contemplated that the accused

.

would repair it and use it to shoot at some person. The

involvement of the petitioner was not found in the shooting

incident. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be

allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for

the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner had sold the

gun to Balkar Singh without any license. The petitioner owns two

other guns and he would have been aware of the fact that the

transfer of the gun requires a license. The petitioner would have

been aware of the fact that the gun would be used for the

commission of a crime and the petitioner cannot escape from the

liability; hence, 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. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.

Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that

the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised

sparingly. It was observed:

"67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under

.

Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the

same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court

has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other

factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect

while exercising such power for the grant of

anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances

exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy."

8. The status report does not show that the presence of

the petitioner is required for the interrogation. The petitioner is a

teacher and has roots in the society and there are no chances of

his fleeing from justice.

9. As per the status report, the petitioner had sold the

gun, which was found by him while demolishing his old house as

scrap. The gun was defective. Hence, the submission that the

petitioner would have been aware of the fact that a gun can be

used for the commission of a crime cannot be accepted. The gun

was defective and could not have been used for committing any

crime in the state in which it was sold. It is difficult to hold the

.

petitioner liable for the repairs carried out by the purchaser.

10. Hence, there is force in the submission of Mr. Sanjeev

Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

can only be held liable for the possession of arms without a

license. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had sold the

gun as scrap and in a defective condition, the pre-trial detention

of the petitioner does not appear to be justified.

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

and the order dated 15.06.2024 is made absolute till the disposal

of the trial, however, on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner will join the investigations, as and

when called upon to do so by way of a written hukamnama,

(ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing

the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court.

.

(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.r

12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty

or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the

investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for

cancellation of the bail. The petition stands accordingly disposed

of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

13. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the

disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on

the merits of the case

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 18th July, 2024 (saurav pathania)