1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.1060 of 2011. Date of decision: 27.12. 2011. Vikram Singh, S/o Shri Kewal Singh, R/o Village Chanan Niwas, near Kanoongo Building Vikasnagar, Shimla-9, HP presently confined in Judicial custody in District Jail, Dharamshala, District- Kangra, Himachal Pradesh since 04.09.2011. ......Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary Home, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. ......Respondent. Petition under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of regular bail. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate & Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr.J.S.Rana,Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 190/2011 dated 04.09.2011, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, under Sections 147,148, 149, 307, 506 IPC. 2. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the complaint of Rajinder Singh Thakur, who claims himself to be the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 President of Taxi Union at Inter-State Bus Terminus Shimla. The prosecution case is that 5-6 vehicles with accused persons came from Tutikandi side and said persons gave beatings to taxi drivers causing injuries to Mahender Singh,Tej Singh and Babu Ram. Mahender Singh was thrown from taxi stand to railway line. The assailants were armed with pistol, sword and 'dandas'. The assailants fled away after committing crime in vehicles bearing registration Nos. HP-62-0959 and HP-45-9091. 3. It has been stated that the case of the prosecution is full of doubts and suspicion. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner or any accused had made attack with sword, 'danda' or fired bullets from pistol on the complainant or the taxi drivers. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. It has been stated that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is innocent, he has nothing to do with the commission of offence and alleged injuries sustained by taxi drivers. The petitioner has no connection with any of the taxi unions, he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. The investigation in the case is complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed. The further custody of the petitioner is not required in the case. The petitioner filed some bail applications in the Court below and in this Court which have been dismissed or withdrawn. The last bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, on 01.12.2011. The petitioner has conceded that earlier four cases were registered against him and in one case he has been acquitted and in three cases the trial is in progress. It 3 has been stated that petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 6. The bail application has been opposed by the respondent by filing status report in which it has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Rajinder Thakur. It has been stated that on 04.09.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., 5-6 vehicles came from Tutikandi side and the persons came out from these vehicles and attacked taxi drivers. The assailants were having pistol, swords and 'dandas'. It has been stated that Mahender Singh, Tej Singh and Babu Ram sustained grievous injuries. Mahender Singh was thrown on the railway line. The assailants were several persons including Sonu alias Vikram Singh. All of them gave beatings to the taxi drivers with an intention to kill them. After committing the crime, the assailants returned in two vehicles. 7. The injured were got medically examined. In the opinion of the doctor, the injured had sustained simple injuries. The petitioner was arrested on 05.09.2011. The petitioner has produced 'danda' during investigation which was allegedly used by him at the time of commission of offence. It has been stated that petitioner and his associates had thrown Mahender Singh from the parking floor on the railway track as a result of which he sustained various injuries. In the past, four cases have been registered against the petitioner. In one case he has been acquitted and in three cases trial is pending. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 8. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The 4 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he used pistol, sword or 'danda' at the time of alleged occurrence. The injured have sustained simple injuries as per their MLCs. No case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Only on the ground that petitioner is an accused in three cases in which trial is in progress, the bail cannot be refused to petitioner. There is change of circumstance after filing of the challan. The trial of the case will take some time. The further detention of the petitioner is un-necessary and is in violation of human rights. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner is in custody in accordance with law and, therefore, there is no question of violation of human rights of the petitioner. The petitioner is repeating the offences. In view of gravity of allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. 9. Babu Ram injured in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has named petitioner for giving beatings to Mahender Singh, Tej Singh and to him. Mahender Singh has also named Sonu i.e. petitioner and he has stated that he and others have given beatings to him and thrown him from the parking floor on the railway track where be became unconscious. He has stated that these persons also gave beatings to Tej Singh and Babu Ram. As per status report, 'danda' has been recovered from the petitioner. In the past, at least four cases were registered against the petitioner and he is facing trial in three cases. The challan has been submitted under Section 307 etc. IPC against the petitioner. The case is fixed for consideration of charge. There is no 5 substantial change of circumstance after dismissal of earlier bail applications of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew the bail application after framing of charges. 10. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. December 27, 2011. (Krt)