IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 840 of 2011 Date of decision : 21.10.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Vicky Sidhu …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. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 190 of 2011 dated 4.9.2011 registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506 IPC. In the application, it has been stated that Rajinder Thakur lodged the report on 4.9.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. that when he alongwith other taxi drivers was present in the taxi stand, 5-6 vehicles came from Tutikandi side packed with many persons, who were armed with dandas and weapons. They attacked the complainant and other taxi drivers as a result of which, they sustained injuries. 2. It has been stated that no offence as alleged has been committed. The complainant party took quarrel with persons of taxi union of ISBT, Shimla over the issue of taxi union in the newly shifted ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 bus stand of Shimla. The dispute was among members of two taxi unions. The petitioner has nothing to do with either of the taxi unions but he has been falsely implicated in the case. No case under Section 307 IPC has been made out. 3. The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail which has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla. The petitioner has nothing to do with this scuffle. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation, furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. In view of the registration of the case, the petitioner apprehends his arrest in the case. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the basis of status report. It has been stated that anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla on 21.9.2011. The petitioner has joined the investigation and produced the danda which was used in the commission of offence. It has been stated that some more arrests are yet to be made in the case. Rakesh Negi with the aid of other accused had thrown Mahinder Singh from the floor of the taxi union parking 20 feet down over the railway track, who suffered injuries on his head and other parts of the body. The investigating agency has given the list of cases with status against the petitioner : (i) Case FIR No. 198/05 dated 11.7.2005 U/s 325, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla- Acquitted on 24.4.2010. (ii) Case FIR No. 275/05 dated 15.10.2005 U/s 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla- Acquitted on 27.8.2008. 3 (iii) Case FIR No. 67/09 dated 25.4.2009 U/s 341, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla- Acquitted on 21.4.2010. (iv) Case FIR No. 8/10 dated 6.1.2010 U/s 452, 323, 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla- Under trial. (v) Case FIR No. 139/10 dated 19.6.2010 U/s 451, 323, 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla- Under trial. (vi) Case FIR No. 153/10 dated 14.7.2010 U/s 376, 417, 509, 506 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla - CR prepared on 20.11.2010. (vii) Case FIR No. 229/10 dated 8.11.2010 U/s 451, 323, 34 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla- Under trial. (viii) Case FIR No. 28/11 dated 11.2.2011 U/s 341, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sadar, Shimla- Under trial. It has been stated that in view of the past conduct of the petitioner he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. In order to find out the truth and other persons connected with the commission of offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 5. Heard and perused the report. The petitioner during investigation has produced the danda which was allegedly used in the commission of offence. The information supplied by the investigating agency reveals that in last six years, eight cases were registered against the petitioner. He has been acquitted in three cases, in one case under Section 376 IPC etc. cancellation report has been prepared but it has not been stated either by the investigating agency or on behalf of the petitioner that such cancellation report has been accepted by the court or not. The petitioner is facing trial atleast in four cases. It appears the petitioner is habitual in committing the offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to 4 pre-arrest bail at this stage. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 6. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. October 21, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.