Vivek Thakur alias Babbu 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. 21 of 2011 dated 1.2.2011 registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, under Sections 341, 147, 149, 307, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. It has been stated that petitioner was arrested on 12.2.2011 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner applied for bail but his application has been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh on 20.4.2011. The other bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on 28.5.2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh. The bail application filed in the High Court by the petitioner has been withdrawn on 21.6.2011. It has been stated that the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, injured PW-2 has not identified the petitioner nor he has stated anything against the petitioner. PW-7 Ajmer Singh witness of disclosure statement has not exclusively linked the accused with the recovery of pistol (katta). It has been stated that no case u/s 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of statement of Hans Raj Chandel, father of PW-2 Amit Chandel. It has been stated that Vivek and Jagdeep accused are also accused in FIR No. 170 of 2010 under Sections 457, 511 IPC and they are facing trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh. There are in all five accused namely Vivek, Jagdeep, Hardeep, Rajinder and Harpreet Singh. It has been stated that Vivek, Jagdeep and Harpreet Singh are facing trial whereas Hardeep and Rajinder Singh have absconded. The petitioner is the main accused and an influential person. In case he is released on bail, he can influence the remaining prosecution witnesses who are to be examined on 14.3.2012. A prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the record. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that injured PW-2 Amit Chandel has not stated anything regarding the involvement of petitioner. I have gone through the statement of PW-2 Amit Chandel. He has denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that none of the accused had hit his car from behind with motorcycle and thereafter driven his car and aimed with country made pistol (katta) and fired which hit him on 1.2.2011. He has denied that accused have been falsely implicated in the case and he could not identify the assailants to be the persons who were present in the court on the day the statement of PW-2 was recorded. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that PW-7 has not exclusively linked the petitioner with the disclosure statement and recovery of pistol (katta). The trial is already fixed on 14.3.2012 for PWs. PW-2 has not stated that petitioner was not involved in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage, hence petition is dismissed. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.