Rinku alias Amardeep vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This is an application for bail by one of the accused who is arrested in connection with FIR No. 80 dated 21.3.1996 of Police Station Civil Lines, Hissar for the offences under sections 323, 324, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The complaint is given by one Joginder Singh student of B.A. IInd Year in Government College, Hissar. On the day of complaint, he appeared in the examination in Geography paper and at about 11.30 A.M., he came out of the examination hall and went to cycle stand. His friends namely Tribhuwan Sharma and Jagbir Bahadian and others came out there. In the meanwhile, the petitioner armed with pistol, and Vinay armed with sword, Sunil Taxak armed with pistol, Vikas Single and Narinder armed with sword and others armed with lathis and dandas came there. Rinku said that they should teach a lesson for lodging a police case against them. On saying so, Vinay Kumar gave a sword blow on the left side of the complainant, the others also caused injuries with lathis and dandas on the head of left hand. Narinder gave a sword blow which hit right side of Tribhuwan and remaining also gave danda blows on his chest, head and hands. In the meantime, the complainant and others called for help. Rinku and Sunil Taxak fired from their pistols with the intention to kill them and ran away towards the main road. The complainant also followed them. In the meanwhile, Sunil Taxak fired a shot with his pistol which hit a passerby in his chest. Sunil Taxak fired one more shot on the same passerby. This is the complaint in the FIR.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner''s shot has not hit the passerby and therefore, he should be released on bail. The learned Advocate for State of Haryana has on the other hand states that one Dr. Ram Lal was injured in the incident and he was injured by the shots fired by the petitioner. She has read the statement of Karan Singh. According to this statement, the petitioner has fired one shot. He said that the person going on the scooter was injured. Ram Lal states in his police statement that the person ahead of his scooter was hit by a shot and he was on the scooter. He further stated that he saw Rinku and Rinku injured Dr. Ram Lal.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the statements of Ram Lal and Karan Singh subsequently involved the petitioner in causing the injury to Dr. Ram Lal and that the petitioner having injured Ram Lal is not mentioned in the FIR. The learned Advocate for State of Haryana has produced photocopies which are in four papers and they are regarding the injuries caused to Ram Lal and states that Ram Lal was having fire arm injury. At the time of granting bail the Court is to see whether there is prima facie evidence for granting bail. In this case, it is evident from the FIR itself that the petitioner had fired shots from his pistol. Subsequently, injury given to Dr. Ram Lal by the petitioner at present cannot be said to be a got up one because of the medical evidence which is produced by the prosecution.

The persons who fired from their fire arm in the public place, caused injuries to others are dangerous persons and cannot be released on bail. The act of the petitioner cannot be taken lightly and it cannot be said that if the person acting like the petitioner is released on bail will not tamper with the prosecution witness or other evidence. On the other hand the person behaving like petitioner can be expected to act to the contrary. In view of the above facts, I find it proper not to grant this bail application. This bail application is, therefore, dismissed.