Abdul Sittar alias Gattu vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J

This is an application, u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 37/11 dated 28.4.2011 registered at Police Station, Barotiwala, District Solan under Sections 302, 147, 149, IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The case has been registered on the statement of Laxmi Chand. The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. The allegations against the petitioner are vague. The alleged recovery of danda from petitioner is illegal; the danda was planted to implicate the petitioner, however, recovery of danda nowhere improves the case of the prosecution. The prosecution story is doubtful and unbelievable. The petitioner had filed bail application which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge on 11.10.2011. The continuous detention of petitioner is not necessary. He is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been submitted that there are nine accused, out of them eight are in custody and 9th accused Abdhul Khalik has absconded. The petitioner was arrested on 29.4.2011. The challan has been submitted on 19.8.2011, supplementary challan has been submitted on 3.3.2012 and the case is fixed on 24.4.2012 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan.

It has been submitted that case has been registered on the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of Laxmi Chand brother of Dhiyan Chand. It has been stated that 7/8 boys gave beatings to Dhiyan Chand. The brother of the complainant ran towards roof but assailants chased him. Sahil, Gattu, Saleem were identified and named. Sahil kicked Dhiyan Chand with brick, 2/3 boys pushed Dhiyan Chand from the roof and he fell down below. Saleem had thrown broken silencer on Dhiyan Chand. In the meantime several persons gathered on the spot but the assailants ran away towards Jharmajri in two vehicles including vehicle No.HP 12-6807. The injured was taken to Barotiwalla hospital and then to PGI, Chandigarh. On this case was registered. Saleem alias Basir Abdhul, Sitar alias Gattu, Mohmmad Ajmal alias Monu were arrested on 29.4.2011. They during interrogation disclosed that other accused were Mohd. Usman alias Sahil, Hedar Ali and Mohmd. Juber. On the basis of discloser statement, petitioner got recovered danda weapon of offence. The other recoveries were also made. Dhiyan Chand died on 4.11.2011 and on this Section 302 IPC has been added. The submission has been made for rejection of bail application.

Heard and perused the record. Dhiyan Chand was given beatings on 28.4.2011. The case has been registered on the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of Laxmi Chand brother of Dhiyan Chand. The complainant has named the petitioner for giving beatings to Dhiyan Chand. Dhiyan Chand was given serious beatings by petitioner and others. He was thrown from the roof of the room. He became unconscious. The assailants thereafter ran away from the spot in two vehicles including vehicle No.HP 12-6807. Dhiyan Chand was taken to Barotiwala hospital and then to PGI, Chandigarh. Dhiyan Chand ultimately died on 4.11.2011. On the disclosure statement of petitioner weapon of offence a danda has been recovered. It has been submitted that recovery of danda is illegal and planted. This will be considered during trial of the case. All the accused are in custody. It has been stated that one accused Abdhul Khalik has absconded.

The prosecution has apprehension that in case petitioner is released on bail, he will also abscond like Abdhul Khalik and will not be available for trial. This submission of the prosecution is not without substance. Dhiyan Chand was given merciless beatings by several persons and the allegations are that petitioner was also one of the assailants. The allegations are serious. The challan has been submitted in the Court. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case.