Randhir Singh & another vs State of Himachal Pradesh

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 62 of 2016, dated 05.06.2016, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short "IPC") and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P.

As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail.

Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 05.06.2016, complainant, Rashpal Singh, got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. before the police, wherein he has stated that the petitioners are having their land adjoining to the land of the complainant party. On 05.06.2016 the petitioners constructed a retaining wall on the inter se boundary of their respective lands, however, the same was constructed on the side of the complainant party. The complainant requested the petitioners to remove the retaining wall, but the petitioners did not remove the same. The complainant party started removing the retaining wall by putting the stones on the land of the petitioners and in the meanwhile petitioner, Randhir Singh, came with a sword and petitioner, Gurdarshan Singh, came with rod and gun. Petitioner Gurdarshan Singh, gave a rod blow on the shoulder of Gurinder Singh and petitioner, Randhir Singh, gave two blows of sword on the head of the complainant. On hearing the noise, bhabhi (Parminder Kaur) and tai (Kava Devi) of the complainant also came on the spot and when they were trying to pacify the petitioners, sword blow hit an arm of his tai, due to which her arm got severe cut injuries. During the scuffle, elder brother of complainant (Rajinder Singh) and Gurdeep Singh, snatched the sword and rod, which they, later on, brought to their home. Kava Devi was shifted to the hospital. Police investigated the matter, took into possession the weapons of offence. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and spot map was also prepared. An FIR was registered and the accused persons were arrested. Police completed all the codal formalities and challan was presented in the learned Trial Court. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application of the petitioners may be dismissed.

Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioners are innocent and are the residents of the place. He has further argued that they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, no recovery is to be effected at their instance and keeping in view the period since when they are under custody, they may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a serious offence and have disturbed the peace in the society and in case they are enlarged on bail there are chances that they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, so the present is a fit case where the bail is required to be dismissed.

I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police record in detail.

At this stage, taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the complainant party, pendency of cross FIR against the complainant party as well as the nature of injuries suffered by Kava Devi (Tai of the complainant) on her arm, which is stated likely to cause death, also keeping in mind the other aspects, which have come on record, including the fact that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than a year, and the rule is bail and not jail, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are not likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as one of the petitioners is serving in Army and the petitioners are having their landed property and are not in a position to flee from justice, therefore, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, who have been arrested by the police of Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, in connection with case FIR No. 62 of 2016, dated 05.06.2016, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, they shall be released on bail forthwith, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required.

(ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iii) That the petitioners will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.