IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) No. 527 of 2011 Date of decision: 05.08.2011 Arun ... Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. V.K. Ahuja , J.: The petitioner has applied for grant of bail in FIR No. 157/2011 dated 11.7.2011. under Sections 326, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. A notice of the application was issued to the respondent – State. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the place, is not likely to abscond and the facts will show that the complainant party 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 was an aggressor party and in the process, the injured has received the injuries himself and not due to any act of the petitioner. 5. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694, wherein in Para-112 of the judgment, their Lordships have laid down factors and parameters, which can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail application. This may be reiterated as under:- “112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:- (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the extract role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role 3 of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State has submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR as the person who had caused the injuries, which have been opined to be grievous by the Medical Officer and dangerous to life. The offence alleged against the petitioner apart from the other Sections under Section 307 I.P.C., which is punishable for imprisonment for life also. 7. In the case referred to above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered number of the factors, which should be considered by 4 the Courts in considering the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In that case, namely, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, one of the plea taken was in regard to the case having been registered due to political rivalry and that FIR also referred to an incident which had taken place on the instigation of the appellant about 8 years ago. Considering the facts of the case, their Lordships had laid down the above principles, which should weigh with the Courts in allowing the application. Their Lordships had also reiterated the decision of Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565, and had also referred to some of the decisions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It was reiterated that the decision in Sibbia’s case lays down law. A perusal of this decision shows that in Para-11 of the judgment reference was also made to the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejecting the application for bail and Para - 11(6) reads asunder:- “11(6) The discretion under Section 438 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless.” 8. It is, therefore, clear that the other considerations can weigh with the Courts, but the discretion under Section 438 cannot be exercised with regard to the offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the Court is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless. There is nothing on record or even 5 in the submissions to show that the charge was groundless and the only submission was in regard to the manner of the injury having been sustained by the injured. 9. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, the bail application cannot be allowed and the petitioner is at liberty to apply for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. once he is arrested. The bail application is dismissed accordingly. Copy Dasti. ( V.K. Ahuja ) August 05, 2011 Judge (BSS) 6