IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 944 of 2009 Date of decision : 10.11.2009. Baljeet Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant, Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 223 registered on 17.9.2009 at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. under Section 307 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that informant has suppressed the genesis of occurrence and has concealed true facts from the police or the police with a view to succeed I n the case has ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 connived with the informant to concoct a false story. There is no allegation of prior enmity nor there is any reason for the petitioner to have stopped his vehicle and to hurl abuses at Sanju Ram. There is no allegation that petitioner was insane. The story of the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. 3. It has been alleged that there was no intention of the petitioner to kill otherwise as per version of the informant the distance between the injured and assailant must be short and it was also not dark. On the basis of injury on the arm of the complainant at the most an offence under Section 324 or Section 326 IPC is made out, even though this also is neither conceded nor admitted. As per the prosecution story the necessary ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not fulfilled in order to make out a case that petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 4. The petitioner is a co-accused in FIR No. 159 dated 7.7.2007 registered at Police Station, Palampur under Sections 341, 353, 332, 506 and 34 IPC. There is no connection between FIR No. 159 of 2007 and the present case. It cannot be concluded that petitioner intended to cause murder and thus he attempted to commit murder. 5. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala on 21.10.2009. It has been submitted that the investigation in the case is almost complete. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds and, therefore, prayer has been made to release the petitioner on bail. 3 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the case has been registered on the statement of injured Ram Lal complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. According to complainant, he was sitting in the shop of his friend Guddu Ram at Kalyadkar Tika, his nephew Sanju Ram was also there. At about 6.00 p.m. petitioner came there in his vehicle which he was driving himself, Sanju Ram was sitting on his motorcycle. The petitioner hurled filthy abuses at Sanju Ram, the complainant asked petitioner why he was abusing Sanju Ram. On this, petitioner took out his revolver / pistol and fired at the complainant which hit his left arm and blood started oozing out from the wound. The complainant became unconscious and on regaining consciousness the complainant found himself in the hospital. The petitioner surrendered on 18.9.2009 and on that date he was arrested. 7. On behalf of the State it has been submitted that petitioner has criminal history inasmuch as he is already facing trial in a Palampur Court in FIR No. 157 of 2007 registered on 7.7.2007 under Sections 341, 353, 332, 506 and 34 IPC. It has been submitted that possibility cannot be ruled out that if the petitioner is released on bail he will commit again some serious offence. It has been submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala on21.10.2009 and there is no change of circumstance thereafter. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution case in brief is that at the 4 relevant date and time the petitioner came on the spot, he abused Sanju Ram, nephew of the complainant which was objected by the complainant. On this, the petitioner took out his weapon and fired at the complainant hitting him on left arm. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no intention to kill the complainant otherwise keeping in view the distance from where the petitioner fired at the complainant the petitioner would not have miss the aim. This argument is noticed only to be rejected. 9. It has come on record that petitioner had fired at complainant without any lawful excuse. It was the good luck of the injured that the bullet hit him on the arm and not on some vital organ. The fact that petitioner fired at injured without any rhyme and reason indicates the nature of petitioner which is further reflected from the fact that petitioner is already facing trial in a case arising out of FIR No. 159 of 2007 registered on 7.7.2007. There is substance in the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that in case petitioner is released on bail, possibility cannot be ruled out that he will commit again some serious offence. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala only on 21.10.2009 has rejected the bail application of the petitioner and thereafter no change of circumstance has been pointed out. I have gone through the record and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence of bail. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 5 11. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 10, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.