Mohammad Ajmal 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. 37/11 dated 28.4.2011, under Sections 307, 147, 149, 323 IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Indian Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Barotiwala. The status report filed and the same has been perused.

It has been stated in the application that Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no legal evidence connecting the Petitioner with the commission of offence. The continuous custody of the Petitioner is not necessary. The Petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family and his wife has recently delivered a baby. The Petitioner had earlier filed bail application, which was rejected on 2.8.2011 by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan. The prayer has been made for releasing the Petitioner on bail.

The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that case has been registered on the basis of statement u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure of Lachhmi Chand, brother of the injured. The substance of the story as per investigating agency is that all accused after forming unlawful assembly and with common object attacked Dhian Chand on 28.4.2011 and since then he is in comma. The Petitioner has actively participated in the commission of offence. The fire arms have also been recovered in the case. The injury sustained by the injured, as per doctor, is dangerous to life. The accused Mohd. Juber, Kali Dass and Rajan have been released on bail. The challan has already been submitted. One accused Abdul Khaliq has absconded.

I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The injured was thrown from the roof of the house on 28.4.2011. The Petitioner has participated in throwing the injured from the roof of the house. The co-accused had fired from illegal fire arms. The recovery of fire arms and ammunition has been made by the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the order dated 2.8.2011 has recorded the observation that Petitioner is involved in many cases. In view of gravity of offence and the manner with which it has been committed, the Petitioner is not entitled to bail. Resultantly, the application is dismissed.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case.