Davinder Kumar vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. for releasing the Petitioner on bail in FIR No. 105/2011 dated 23.03.2011, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 326, 324, 201 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. The status report filed and the same has been perused.

It has been stated in the application that a false case has been registered against the Petitioner along with other co-accused with the allegations that during a ''Mela'' at Paonta Sahib riots took place and Petitioner associated with particular sect, thereby caused injuries to some persons resulting into death of three persons. The allegations against the Petitioner are false. He never participated in the mob.

The Petitioner has been selected for the post of clerical cadre in the Central Bank of India. It appears some people are not happy with the success of the Petitioner and false allegations have been levelled against him. As per letter dated 07.09.2011 issued by Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Shimla, the Petitioner has been directed to report on 19.09.2011. On these grounds, the Petitioner has prayed for bail.

It has been further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that Petitioner is innocent. He is in custody for the last several months. The trial of the case will take some time, no purpose will be served by detaining the Petitioner in custody for indefinite period. The Petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court.

The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that bail application of the Petitioner has already been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 10.08.2011. The case is now fixed for consideration of charge on 23.09.2011. The case has been registered on the basis of statement u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure of Naresh Kumar recorded on 23.03.2011.

The Petitioner during investigation identified the place of occurrence. The allegation against the Petitioner is that he caught-hold deceased Anil Kumar while accused Sumit inflicted fatal blow on deceased Anil Kumar. Similarly, Petitioner aided other accused in murdering Sanjeev Kumar. There are allegations of conspiracy against the Petitioner. The Petitioner remained in contact with other co-accused on mobile phone. The accused party was armed with knives, daggers, ''Kripans'', ''dandas''. It has been stated by learned Additional Advocate General that there are eight accused in the case and none of them has been released on bail.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the police file. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that merely gravity of offence is no criteria for refusing bail. He has submitted that likely delay in commencement and completion of trial is a relevant factor for releasing the Petitioner on bail. He has submitted that reputation of a person is his valuable asset and is a facet of his right under Article 21. He has submitted that as per prosecution the case is of free fight in two groups. At this stage, the allegations imputed to the Petitioner cannot be accepted at their face value. The Petitioner has been selected in the Bank and his career is at stake, if he is not released on bail.

There are specific allegations against the Petitioner. He caught-hold the deceased who was inflicted fatal blow by another co-accused. It has come during investigation that Petitioner and other co-accused remained in contact with each other on mobile phones and accused party was equipped with deadly weapons like daggers, ''Kripans'', knives, ''dandas'', when they attacked the injured. Simply that the Petitioner has been selected as Clerk in the Bank is no ground to release him on bail keeping in view the seriousness of the case and allegations imputed to the Petitioner in the commission of the offence. The case is fixed for consideration of charge and as of today it cannot be said that there is delay in the trial. The bail application of the Petitioner has already been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Petitioner has not made out any case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.