Sushil Kumar Sharma vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P. (M) No. 964 of 2011,Cr.M.P.(M) No. 965 of 2011,Cr.M.P. (M) No. 966 of 2011 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 967 of 2011,all filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 236/2011, dated 17.11.2011,registered at Police Station Theog, DistrictShimla,under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

It has been stated in the petitions thatthe petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are innocent. On account ofregistration of the aforesaid case, all thepetitioners are apprehending their arrest. Thepetitioners are ready to join investigation, norecovery is to be made from the petitioners. Thepetitioners are ready to furnish the bail bonds inaccordance with the directions of this Court. The case has been registered in order to harass thepetitioners. The prayer has been made for releasingthe petitioners on bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P. (M) No.964 of 2011 and the petitions have beenopposed. The case has been registered on thestatement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. of Pritam Chand.The complainant has stated that he had been workingwith Sunil Kumar, driver of Pick-up H.P.-63A-3303for the last one year. On 17.11.2011, thecomplainant proceeded from Dhali to Theog in thePick-up. They stopped at new Bhakelati for repairingtyre, where Alto Car No. 3790 was already parked. It has been stated that four boys came out of the Carand caught Sunil Kumar on the allegations that hehad given beatings to Bhajna at Cheog. All the fourboys gave beatings to Sunil Kumar with kick and fistblows, the complainant was also slapped by one boy,when he objected. All the four boys ran away in thesame Alto Car towards Fagu. Sunil Kumar sustainedinjury on his nose.

The injured was taken to the hospital,where the doctor stated that the injured was not ina position to make the statement and, therefore,statement of Pritam Chand was recorded u/s 154 Cr.P.C. The injured was referred to IGMC Shimlafor treatment. The accused after the occurrenceabsconded. They joined the investigation on 25.11.2011. The vehicle used during the commissionof the offence has been taken into possession.

The final opinion of the doctor regardingthe injuries sustained by the injured has not yetbeen received. The injured has been discharged fromIGMC Shimla, on 28.11.2011. The accused arequarrelsome persons and in case they are released onbail, they can terrorize the prosecution witnesses.The submission has been made for rejection of thebail petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for thepetitioners and learned Additional Advocate Generaland have also gone through the records.

The learned Additional Advocate General hasstated that no recovery is to be made from thepetitioners. The learned counsel for the petitionershas submitted that the petitioners have been falselyimplicated in the case. It has been submitted thatSushil Kumar Sharma and Devinder Singh petitionersare serving in the Army. The complainant has statedin his statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. that thebeatings were given to Sunil Kumar with kick andfist blows.

The investigating agency has stated that asyet the doctor has not given the final opinionregarding the injuries sustained by Sunil Kumar. Theapprehension of the investigating agency that thepetitioners will terrorize the prosecution witnesseshas not been corroborated from the evidence so farcollected on record. In case, the petitioners willterrorize the prosecution witnesses, then theinvestigating agency shall have right to proceed inaccordance with law. In the facts and circumstances,the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

In view of above discussion, all thepetitions are allowed, the petitioners in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 964 of 2011, Cr.M.P. (M) No. 965 of 2011, Cr.M.P. (M) No. 966 of 2011 and Cr.M.P. (M) No. 967 of 2011in the event of arrest are directed to be releasedon bail in FIR No. 236/2011, dated 17.11.2011, registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read withSection 34 IPC, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that the petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

The observations made in the judgment arefor the disposal of the bail petitions and shall notbe construed as expression of opinion on the meritsof the case