AJAY GUPTA AND ANOTHER vs STATE THROUGH P/S CHANNI HIMMAT

Two applications for the grant of bail in anticipation of the arrest of the applicants in case bearing FIR No. 119/2017, registered at Channi Himmat,

Jammu, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 307/452/147 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act, require consideration by this order.

What needs to be stated at the outset is that the applicants filed two applications incorporating the same prayer as raised in these applications

before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, primarily, on the same grounds as have been agitated in these applications for the grant of

bail in anticipation of arrest in their favour. Both the applications met the same fate and were dismissed by order dated 11.11.2017 of the learned

First Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on the grounds that the object of Section 497-A Cr. PC is that a person who is innocent should not be

harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the personal vendetta of the complainant party and the power under the said Section is required to be

exercised only in cases which are exceptional in nature and where it appears to the Court that a person has been falsely implicated for the commission

of offences levelled against him or a frivolous case has been registered against him.Â

The factual background of the case is that on 11th October, 2017, Vishal Gupta S/o Mahinder Parkash Gupta R/O H. No. 229 Sector 6 Channi

Himmat lodged a written report before the authorities at Police Station Channi Himmat Jammu, stating therein that at about 10.30 to 11.00 pm, he was

in his room and at that juncture the accused Ankit Gupta wielding a baseball bat in his hand barged into his house. He abused him and attacked him on

his head with the baseball bat, as a consequence of which the informant received serious injuries in his head and blood started oozing out of the

injuries. Mohit Gupta the other accused armed with a “kirch and karra†also started beating the informant. Both of them attacked the informant

with the intention to kill him. The informant raised a hue and cry which attracted his parents towards the scene of occurrence. In the meanwhile,

Kusum Gupta and son and son-in-law of her sister also entered into the house of the informant and they also beat him, where after, the accused fled

away from the scene of occurrence. During the course of the investigation of the case, the injured was taken to the Govt. Hospital Gandhi Nagar

Jammu, for medical treatment. The site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and the blood stained clothes of the informant/injured were

seized. Ankit Gupta and Mohit Gupate were arrested during the course of investigation of the case. It is stated that it was at their behest that the

weapons of offence allegedly used by both of them in committing the offences were recovered. The injured was discharged from the hospital, and the

statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded under section 164-A Cr. PC.

The applicants in their applications have taken shelter under the oft repeated principles of law governing the grant of bail. They have stated that

they are innocent. They have not committed any offence. They are the law abiding citizens of the state having deep roots in the society. They are

persons of repute and in case they are put behind the bars that will undermine their reputation and that they shall abide by the conditions whatever are

imposed on them by the Court in case they are admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest.

Heard and considered.

There appears to be no reason to take a view contrary to the one expressed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in the

applications on hand. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has observed in his order that the informant suffered serious injuries on the

vital parts of his body including the head. In carving out the case for the rejection of the bail in anticipation of arrest of the accused, he has relied on

the dictum of law laid down in the case of “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others†reported in 2011 (1) Crimes 109

(SC). In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. The Apex Court held that it is imperative

for the Courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available

material and the facts of the particular case and in the cases where the Court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation

and he is co-operating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided and the

accused can be admitted to bail in anticipation of his arrest.Â

In the present case, admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place on 10.10.2017. The accused are allegedly involved in the commission of offences

under Sections 307/452/147 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act and out of the accused involved in the said occurrence, only two of them namely Ankit Gupta

and Mohit Gupta were arrested on 12th and 13th of October 2017 and they were released on bail on 28.10.2017 by the Court of learned CJM, Jammu.

The applicants herein, filed two applications for the grant of bail in their favour in anticipation of their arrest. These were rejected. Subsequently, the

applicants knocked at the doors of this Court by claiming the same relief on similar set of grounds. They have neither joined the investigation nor have

they co-operated with the investigating agency so that the matter could be brought to its logical conclusion. They have played hide and seek with the

investigating agency and on the analogy of the law laid down above and applied to the applications on hand these are bound to fail.

In view of the preceding analysis, there appears to be no merit and substance in the applications of the applicants. These entail dismissal and are,

accordingly, dismissed.Â

A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Court along with the record which has been summoned by this Court.