IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1017 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.12.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Arun son of Shri Ghanshyam Soni R/o House No. 15, Sector Raura-II, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok 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. 157 of 2011 dated 11.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, under Sections 326, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner is in custody since 15.9.2011. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 19.11.2011 and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the bail application. 3. It has further been stated in the application that at about 9.00 p.m. on 11.7.2011 the petitioner received a call on his ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 mobile phone. The caller asked the petitioner to send his brother Ajay outside the shop. The petitioner looked outside the shop and saw about 12 persons standing on the other side of the road. The elder brother of the petitioner noticed the persons standing outside the shop were in threatening mood. The petitioner immediately called the police help by dialing 100 number from his landline phone of the shop. 4. The persons standing outside the shop in the meantime came to the shop and asked the petitioner to come out side the shop. The petitioner fearing damage and loss to the shop, came out of the shop, he was taken to the other side of the road. One person caught hold the petitioner from collar with both hands, the petitioner pushed that person and ran away from the spot. The person who was holding the petitioner also left the place on his motorcycle and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Thereafter, FIR was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur. 5. The petitioner filed Cr.MP(M) No. 527 of 2011 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the High Court and interim bail was granted to the petitioner, which was rejected on 5.8.2011. The petitioner approached Supreme Court for anticipatory bail but Supreme Court dismissed the petition of the petitioner for anticipatory bail on 29.8.2011. The counsel at Delhi sent the information to the petitioner on the address of the shop which was closed for quite some time as the brother of the petitioner was also arrested by the police on 21.8.2011. The petitioner on receipt of information of dismissal of his bail application by the Supreme Court, surrendered and was taken into custody. 3 6. The petitioner filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 19.11.2011. It has been stated that the police instead of providing help to petitioner when he sought police help on 11.7.2011, implicated the petitioner in false case. The investigation in the case is not fair and transparent, the brother of the petitioner has been falsely implicated, even though there is not even a word against the said brother in the FIR. 7. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. He is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than two months. The trial of the case will take some time. No purpose will be served for detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. Prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 8. The status report has been filed and learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. It has been stated that on the statement of Karun Kumar the case has been registered on 11.7.2011. It has been stated that on 11.7.2011 at about 8.45 p.m. the complainant was present at Gurudwara Chowk along with his friends Manoj, Pankaj and Ravi. The complainant contacted the petitioner on phone and asked him why he had been calling on phone one girl known to the complainant. The petitioner initially abused and then immediately rushed out alongwith a cutter and gave a blow of the cutter in the abdomen of the complainant, blood started oozing out. The friends of the complainant took him on the motorcycle to the Police 4 Station but they were told first go to the hospital, his friends took him to the hospital on the same motorcycle. The petitioner after giving blow to the complainant proceeded towards his shop Bhagirath Communication. 9. It has been stated that MLC of the injured was obtained and the doctor has opined that the injury has been caused with sharp edged weapon and is grievous and life threatening. The injured was referred to IGMC, Shimla where he remained admitted till 19.7.2011. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The petitioner has produced one paper cutter on 1.8.2011 with which he gave blow in the abdomen of injured on 11.7.2011. It has been stated that accused Ajay Soni was arrested and he was released on bail on 20.9.2011. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 6.12.2011. The petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 144 of 2008 dated 17.4.2008 under Sections 451, 427, 323, 506, 34 IPC and FIR No. 248 of 2008 dated 12.7.2008 under Sections 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC both registered at Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur. It has been stated that petitioner is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. The submission has been made for rejection of bail application. 10. I have heard Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the police file. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On 11.7.2011 petitioner sought the police help by dialing 100 number at 9.00 p.m. from his shop but police instead of giving help to the petitioner implicated the petitioner and his brother in false case. 5 There is no allegation against the brother of the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in the High Court, interim bail was granted but ultimately his anticipatory bail application was dismissed on 5.8.2011 by the High Court. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.8.2011. On receiving the intimation of dismissal of the bail application by the Supreme Court, the petitioner surrendered and since 15.9.2011 the petitioner is in custody. It has been submitted that no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. The trial of the case will take some time. It has been submitted that prosecution witness Mauzi faced trial under Section 302 IPC and remained in custody for about four years. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner committed serious offence. No doubt, he filed anticipatory bail applications in the High Court and in the Supreme Court which were dismissed. But even after the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application by the Supreme Court, the petitioner evaded his arrest and he could be arrested only on 15.9.2011. The injured sustained grievous and life threatening injury as per opinion of the doctor. The injured was treated at IGMC, Shimla also in view of nature of injury sustained by him. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application. 12. The perusal of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Karun Kumar indicates that occurrence took place at about 8.45 p.m. 6 on 11.7.2011. It has been stated in the bail application that petitioner at about 9.00 p.m. on 11.7.2011 received a call on his mobile phone. The petitioner from his shop saw about 12 persons standing outside on the other side of the road. He called police help by making a call on 100 number from his landline phone. The contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that police instead of helping the petitioner by providing police help, implicated him in the false case. The telephonic call, if any, was made to police after 9.00 p.m. on 11.7.2011 but the occurrence took place at about 8.45 p.m. on 11.7.2011. It is a matter of trial whether telephonic call was made by the petitioner before or after the occurrence. Prima facie there is nothing on record to show that petitioner made a telephonic call to the police before the occurrence. 13. In the bail application, it has been stated that one person caught hold of the petitioner from the collar, the petitioner pushed him and petitioner ran away from the spot. The person who caught him from the collar also left the place on motorcycle. The petitioner has completely denied the occurrence. The injured has specifically named the petitioner in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The injured has stated that petitioner inflicted cutter blow on his abdomen, the doctor has given opinion that injury sustained by the injured is grievous life threatening and caused by sharp edged weapon. The injured was even treated at IGMC, Shimla in view of nature of injuries sustained by him. 14. The bail application of the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The offence under Section 307 IPC is punishable for imprisonment for life. The 7 petitioner is allegedly facing trial in FIR No. 144 of 2008 dated 17.4.2008 under Sections 451, 427, 323, 506, 34 IPC and FIR No. 248 of 2008 dated 12.7.2008 under Sections 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC both registered at Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur. The prosecution has shown apprehension that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to terrorise the prosecution witnesses. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage, hence the petition is dismissed. 15. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. December 14, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.