IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.163 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.3.2010 Baljeet Singh ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.223/09 dated 17.09.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur , under Section 307 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.223/09 dated 17.09.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala on 21.10.2009. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… The petitioner had filed Cr.MP(M) No.944 of 2009 for granting bail to him but that was dismissed by this Court on 10.11.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another bail application which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala on 27.11.2009. The petitioner filed another bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.71 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 2.3.2010. 4. It has been submitted that bail was declined to the petitioner on the basis of allegations made by the respondent that the petitioner had fired at the 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 other vital organ. The petitioner had fired at the injured without any reason. The petitioner is facing another trial and in case he is released on bail, then possibility can not be ruled out that the petitioner will commit some serious offence. It has been submitted that charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, in view of change circumstance of filing the charge-sheet the petitioner is entitled to bail. 5. It has been submitted that case against the petitioner is false. The informant has suppressed the genesis of occurrence and has concealed true facts from the police or the police has concocted a false story. There is no allegation of motive or prior enmity of the petitioner with the injured. The story of the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. According to the prosecution only a single shot was fired. There was no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the injured. It has been submitted that no case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioner, at the most …3… offence under Sections 324, 326 IPC according to prosecution story is made out but even this has not been conceded or admitted on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 6. The bail application has been opposed. According to prosecution the petitioner had fired at the injured without any basis. It was the good luck of the injured that the shot did not hit any vital organ of the injured. The petitioner had surrendered to the police on 18.9.2009. On completion of investigation challan has been presented on 14.12.2009 and is fixed on 20.3.2010 for consideration of charge. It has been submitted that the petitioner is also an accused in FIR No.159/07 dated 7.7.2007 registered under Sections 341, 353, 332, 504, 506, 34 IPC and said case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 5/6/7 May, 2010. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had earlier filed four applications for granting him bail, all of them have been dismissed. The present application is the fifth application filed by the petitioner for granting him bail. I have gone through the order dated 10.11.2009 passed in Cr.MP(M) No.944 of 2009. As per status report, the challan was presented on 14.12.2009, mere filing of the challan in itself will not give any right to the petitioner for releasing him on bail, more particularly, when all the contentions raised by the petitioner have already been considered in the earlier orders rejecting the bail. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had no intention to kill the injured, otherwise the petitioner …4… would not have shot the injured on hand more particularly when the petitioner is an ex-service man and knows very well to handle fire arm. This argument is of no help to the petitioner. It can not be said that simply because the shot hit on the hand therefore, the petitioner had no intention or knowledge to kill the injured. It has also been submitted that no motive or other reason has been shown by the prosecution agency as to why the petitioner should make any attempt to kill the injured. It has come in investigation that the injured has received fire arm injury on his hand. The intention of the petitioner to kill the injured, if any, will be seen by the trial Court during trial. On behalf of the petitioner no new point has been urged so as to make out a case for grant of a bail. There is no merit in the bail application. The result of the above discussion, bail application fails and is accordingly dismissed. 9. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 15, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.