IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.43 of 2008 Decided on: March 19, 2008. Gopal Krishan …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.11/08 dated 13.1.2008 registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi under Sections 307, 341, 342, 323, 325, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Heard and perused the record. The respondent has filed the status report. The prosecution case, in brief, is that A.S.I. Sita Ram in pursuance of DD No.19 had gone to Kullu along with other police officials and recorded the statement of G.La Villa under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of said statement, F.I.R. No.11/08 dated 13.1.2008 under Sections 307, 341, 342, 323, 325, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered at Police Station, Aut. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… 3. The complainant in his statement has alleged that he had proceeded on leave on 27.12.2007 and after availing leave, he was returning to the project on 13.1.2008. He started from Chandigarh at 6.30 a.m. on 13.1.2008 in vehicle No.HP-49-0700 Tata Safari which was driven by Netar Singh. They stopped at Mandi and thereafter they started towards Project side. At place Hara Bagh, he noticed one Scorpio of the company bearing registration No.HP-49- 0493. Rajinder Singh, Senior Manager under transfer to J & K was in that Scorpio. He reached Thalout and stopped there, Netar Singh driver enquired about the availability of beer at that place. Thereafter, he and driver Netar Singh proceeded towards Larji. He noticed one Maruti 800 car without number plate deliberately parked in the middle of the road. At about 12.30 p.m. their vehicle stopped because there was no space left for crossing for their vehicle. As soon as their vehicle slowed down, one person came out from the parked vehicle and approached their vehicle towards driver’s side. He talked to driver and signaled other persons who were sitting in a parked vehicle to come towards their vehicle. Those persons had covered their faces with handkerchiefs up to nose. Two persons entered their vehicle and both sat in the rear seat of their vehicle. One of them, who appeared to be their leader pointed revolver towards the head of the complainant. They ordered the driver of his vehicle to drive into traffic tunnel otherwise they would shoot the complainant. Their car followed the car of the complainant. They stopped at about one kilometer inside the tunnel. One person came out of the car with two wooden sticks. The man with revolver pulled the complainant out of …3… the car and two of them gave beatings to the complainant with wooden sticks. The complainant was thrown on the road. The complainant tried to get up but they again gave beatings to him. After giving beatings they boarded their vehicle and proceeded towards Aut. He could recognize them if they come in front of him with handkerchiefs on their faces. On this, F.I.R. was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On 13.1.2008 at the relevant time the petitioner remained in a function from 11 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. At about 3.30 p.m. after the function was over, the petitioner came to Aut Bazar and saw number of persons gathered at Police Station, Aut. There he was told that G.La Villa, Vice President of Gammon India, has been attacked by some persons. The petitioner had visited Police Station 2 -3 times in between 16.1.2008 to 23.1.2008 in connection with gun licence of his father but he was not questioned by the police about the present case. On 27.1.2008 the petitioner received a telephonic call from Police Station, Aut that three persons, namely, Chuni Lal, Tejaswi and Devinder have named him as co-accused in the present case. The police is proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of false allegations. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the case. 5. The bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that co-accused have named the involvement of the petitioner in the case. The petitioner has criminal record. He is involved in F.I.R. No.51 dated 16.5.2006, Police Station, Banjar, F.I.R. No.62 dated 21.6.2003, Police Station, …4… Kullu, F.I.R. No.252 dated 25.5.2005, F.I.R. No.153 dated 19.12.2006. The petitioner is an influential person, therefore, he is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. In the investigation, it has come that petitioner is a contractor in the Project. The company of the complainant had given some financial benefit to its labour and the contractors of the Project were opposing that the financial benefit which was given by the company to its labour on the ground that the contractors will have to give the same benefit to their labour. The complainant in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. except for certain facts has not stated why his car was stopped by masked persons and what grievance those masked persons had against the complainant. The motive of the masked persons to stop the vehicle of the complainant, pointing of revolver towards his tample, giving him beatings has not been disclosed. The complainant in his statement has stated that he could recognize those persons if those are presented before him with their faces covered with handkerchiefs. It has not been pointed out that during investigation test identification was conducted. The unnumbered Maruti 800 car with specific identity, which was allegedly used in the commission of offence, has not been recovered. It has been submitted that there are seven accused in the case, four have already been released on bail by the Court below and bail application of one accused Rajinder is pending. The fact remains that in the present case, except for bald allegations of co-accused, the investigating agency has not collected any authenticated material against the petitioner, who has joined the investigation. The law will take its course as far as criminal cases …5… pending against the petitioner are concerned. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner, in the event of arrest, is ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R. No.11/08 dated 13.1.2008 registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi under Sections 307, 341, 342, 323, 325, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the condition that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. March 19, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)