IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 697 of 2008. Date of decision: July 16, 2008. Pritam Chand …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioner has filed this application for releasing him on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 56 dated 6.7.2008 registered at Police Station, Arki, under Sections 452, 323, 325, 506, 34 IPC and Section 30 of Arms Act. The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that statement of Shyam Lal was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on 6.7.2008, wherein he has stated that Shiv Ram and Pritam Chand are inimical to him. On 6.7.2008 at about 1.00 p.m. when he was in his house with his children, Shiv Sharma had also come to his house for taking meals. Pritam Chand came there Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… alongwith gun and his father Shiv Ram also came to the complainant’s house. Pritam Chand threatened the complainant that he would kill the complainant with the gun. Shiv Ram also abused the complainant. The complainant asked them to behave properly. On this, Pritam Chand and his father started beating the complainant with kicks and fist blows. They dragged him outside and pushed him down from the lintel and he fell down, as a result of which he sustained injuries on the left ankle. Both of them had earlier also threatened him. The complainant and his family are under constant fear of death and danger to their properties from these two persons. On this statement, a case was registered. 3. Shyam Lal was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Arki and the medical officer has opined injury to be grievous, on the basis of medical opinion offence punishable under section 325 IPC is made out. The accused were searched. Pritam Chand had absconded but Shiv Ram was arrested on 7.7.2008, who was released on bail by learned Judicial Magistrate, Arki. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner has joined the investigation and the gun was produced by Pritam Chand on 11.7.2008 alongwith copy of licence. It has been submitted that petitioner has violated the conditions of the licence of the gun and therefore, has committed an offence punishable under Section 30 of the Arms Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation in the case is complete. The police has already taken …3… into possession the gun and a copy of gun licence has already been supplied to the Investigating Agency, the original licence is with the authorities for renewal of all India licence of gun. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and to furnish the bond in terms of the directions of this court. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that the injured has suffered grievous hurt. The petitioner has misused the gun and violated the conditions of its licence. It has been submitted that petitioner is an ex-service man and he can harm Shyam Lal and his family, in case he is released on bail he will create terror in the area and even terrorise the witnesses. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The co- accused Shiv Ram has been released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate, Arki. The gun has already been taken into possession by the Investigating Agency. The petitioner has joined the investigation. It has not been pointed out for what specific purpose the custody of the petitioner is required in the case. The allegation of possible interference in the investigation by the petitioner are vague with no specific instance. In these circumstances, the application is allowed and interim order passed on 8.7.2008 is made absolute with the conditions that petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. …4… 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of. 8. Dasti copy on usual terms. July 16, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.