Cr.M.P(M) No. 138 of 2010 03.03.2010 Present: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General with Mr. Naseeb Chand, A.S.I., Police Station Paonta Sahib. Reply / status report filed. Investigation record produced. Heard. FIR No. 325 of 2009, dated 14.09.2009 under Sections 392, 397, 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur was registered against three persons namely Naseem Ahmed, the petitioner, Rayees and Akeel on the allegations that on 14.9.2009 at about 10:10 PM at Housing Board Colony, Paonta Sahib, they waylaid victim Dinesh Kumar outside his shop in which he is also running a Govt. Ration Depot. At that time he was carrying a bag containing cash worth Rs. 70/75 thousand alongwith important documents. Complainant Sohan Lal alias Sonu who works at the shop of Dinesh Kumar as a servant was also present at the spot at that time. Out of the aforesaid three persons, one namely Akeel was having a small country made pistol, who fired on the victim causing injury to him on the right leg. As a result he fell down. It was at this point of time that the other person namely Rayees snatched the bag from the victim. Thereafter all the three namely Naseem, Rayees and Akeel fled away from the spot alongwith booty on the motorcycle belonging to petitioner Naseem. The matter was reported to the police by complainant Sohan Lal alias Sonu. The victim was sent for medical examination. The injury report revealed that he had suffered grievous gun shot injury on the right leg. After initial treatment at C.H. Paonta he was sent for further treatment to PGI Chandigarh. Though initially the complainant Sohan Lal alias Sonu had :-2-: stated to the police that the bag snatched from the victim was containing cash worth Rs. 10/15 thousand. However, later on during investigation the victim, Dinesh Kumar disclosed the exact amount of the cash being carried by him in the bag worth Rs. 70/75 thousand. The further case of the prosecution is that it was on 20.11.2009 that information was received from Police Station Vikasnagar in the State of Uttrakhand that all the three persons, as aforesaid, had been arrested within the jurisdiction of that Police Station for commission of certain offences and during interrogation they had disclosed that the present occurrence relating to the aforesaid FIR No. 325 of 2009, dated 14.9.2009 of Police Station Paonta Sahib was also their handy work. In such situation, the custody of all the three is stated to have been obtained by the Police of Police Station Paonta Sahib from Vikasnagar (Uttrakhand) police. The identity of the aforesaid three persons, said to have been involved in the occurrence, is stated to have been established by way of an identification parade carried out at Police Station Paonta Sahib, in which all the three are stated to have been identified both by the complainant and victim Dinesh Kumar to be the same persons who were allegedly involved in the occurrence under reference. All the three named accused, as aforesaid, are presently lodged in judicial custody. Out of them one namely Naseem Ahmed, petitioner is seeking indulgence of this court for being released on bail after his prayer for bail having been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. The bail petitioner is seeking bail on the usual averments that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated :-3-: in this case. There is no evidence worth the name connecting him with the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, no recovery has been effected from him. He has also under taken to abide by the conditions of bail, if granted. Conversely, the prayer for bail is being opposed by the prosecution on the grounds that the case against the petitioner and his co-accused is of a heinous nature. All the three are involved in various other criminal cases within the jurisdiction of Police Station Vikasnagar (Uttrakhand). These cases have been enumerated as FIR Nos. 310/09 under Sections 395/397, 412 IPC, 324/09, dated 20.11.2009 under Sections 399, 402, 307, 412 IPC, 325/09, dated 20.11.2009 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and 326/09, dated 20.11.2009 again under Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the three are desperate persons and are part of an inter-state gang engaged in serious offences like loot, dacoity etc. They are members of an organized criminal gang and in case the petitioner is released on bail he may further indulge in like offences and there is also likelihood of his terrorizing the prosecution witnesses so as to dissuade them from deposing against him before the court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have gone through the investigation record produced before him. After noticing brief facts of the case and the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties, I refrain from going into an elaborate discussion of the same so as to obviate the possibility of any prejudice being caused to either case on behalf of the parties. However, keeping in view the fact that as stated at the bar on behalf of prosecution :-4-: that the final report in the case has already been filed against the three accused, as aforesaid, including the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paonta Sahib and the same is at the committal stage. It being so, it shall not take very long for trial to commence. Insofar as the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence is concerned, the same though vehemently denied, yet is, prima facie, made out from the initial statement dated 16.9.2009 of the victim, Dinesh Kumar recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein though he had not named any of the three accused specifically and had instead disclosed some of their identity marks, yet has supplemented the said statement by his supplementary statement dated 29.11.2009 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has named all the three accused as the persons involved in the occurrence. Apart from it, the identity of the petitioner and the co-accused is further, prima facie, established from the identification parade carried out by the police. Against the above backdrop, I am satisfied that it shall not be unsafe to postpone consideration on the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail at least till the main prosecution witnesses are examined by the court during trial, which as already noticed is going to commence shortly. Till then I am not inclined to exercise the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner to bail, keeping in view the gravity of the accusation levelled against him and the co-accused as also the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which, prima facie, point out towards the vulnerability of safety of person and property of a citizen. :-5-: In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Investigation record returned. (V.K. Sharma), Judge. 3rd March, 2010 (Virender)