Salim alias Bashir vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 37 of 2011 dated 28.4.2011 registered at Police Station, Barotiwala, District Solan, under Sections 307, 147, 149, 323 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act

It has been stated in the application that the petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner was arrested on 28.4.2011 and now he is in judicial custody. It has been stated that challan has already been filed in the court and now the case is fixed on 19.11.2011 before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan. The petitioner had filed bail application which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan on 11.10.2011.

The petitioner is young man of 20 years. He is married and is only earning member in the family. The petitioner had no dispute with injured Dhian Chand. The petitioner is not at all involved in the incident. The continuous detention of the petitioner is not required. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly considered the subject matter of the dispute. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for granting the bail to the petitioner.

The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that there are in all nine accused, one Abdul Khalik has absconded. Out of remaining eight, Mohd. Juber, Rajan and Kalidas have been released on bail but other accused are in judicial custody. It has been stated that injured Dhian Chand is still in coma.

It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of Laxmi Chand brother of injured Dhian Chand. The complainant has stated that on 28.4.2011 he was sleeping in his room. At about 12.50 p.m. he heard a loud sound, he came out and saw that 7-8 boys were beating his brother Dhian Chand. He recognized Sahil, Gattu and Salim, his brother was running towards the roof of the house. All boys some carrying dandas chased him. Sahil took brick and threw it on his brother, 2-3 boys pushed his brother and threw him from the roof. Salim took out broken silencer and threw on his brother. In the meantime, several persons gathered on the spot. On this, the boys ran away in two vehicles including one bearing registration No. HP-12-6807. Dhian Chand was taken to Barotiwala hospital and from there to PGI. On account of acts of Sahil, Gattu, Salim and others, Dhian Chand sustained injuries on his face and other parts of the body. On 29.4.2011 three live cartridges were recovered from Salim alias Bashir. The vehicle HP-12D-6807 was taken into possession. A pistol was recovered from vehicle HP-12D-4159.

It has come in investigation that Mohammed Usman and Abdul Khalik both residents of Jammu & Kashmir had taken on rent house of Dhian Chand, who suspected illicit relations of his wife with Mohammed Usman. Dhian Chand wanted that Mohammad Usman should vacate the room, but Mohammad Usman put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Mohammad Usman wanted to finish Dhian Chand in conspiracy with his friends and threw Dhian Chand from the roof. The silencer and the brick was also thrown on the injured who is still in coma. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the case, the bail application may be rejected.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the police file. The petitioner has been specifically named by the complainant. The allegation against the petitioner is that he threw silencer of the vehicle on Dhian Chand. Another accused threw brick on the injured who is still in coma despite treatment at PGI, Chandigarh. As per the investigating agency, Mohammad Usman wanted to finish Dhian Chand with the help of his friends as injured suspected illicit relations between his wife and Mohammad Usman. The injured wanted that Mohammad Usman should vacate his house, but his house was not vacated. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan after filing of the challan. There is no change of circumstance after the order dated 11.10.2011 when the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan. In view of the gravity of offence and seriousness of allegation against the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

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