Aryan Pratap Singh vs Ut Of J&K

1 Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in respect of F.I.R No. 166/2020 for offence under Sections

323/307/447 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

2 It is the case of the petitioner that he is a student pursuing LLB Course from Jammu University and that his paternal uncle, Gandarb Singh has

lodged a false and frivolous complaint against him as well as against his father and brother as a consequence of which, the aforesaid F.I.R came to be

registered. It is further averred that there is some property dispute going on between the father of the petitioner and the complainant, which has given

rise to the F.I.R in question, which is absolutely false and concocted.

3 Respondent has in its reply narrated that on 17.10.2020, police received a complaint from Gandarb Singh alleging therein that accused Manohar

Singh along with his two sons namely petitioner herein and co-accused Bhanu Pratap Singh trespassed into his land bearing Khasra No. 72 situated at

Village Kundorian, Katra, where he was constructing a shed in his own land. It was further alleged that the accused started quarreling and beating the

complainant and in the meantime, the petitioner herein brought 12 bore rifle and fired upon the complainant but he missed his target. On the basis of

this complainant, the F.I.R in question came to be registered and investigation was commenced. It was found during the investigation that there is a

long standing property dispute going on between the complainant and his brother namely accused-Manohar Singh. The statements of witnesses under

Section 161 Cr.PC have been recorded and the weapon of offence has also been recovered. However, the fired cartridge (empty) has not been

recovered so far.

4 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition and the response filed thereto.

5 So far as the enmity on account of long standing property dispute between petitioner’s father and the complainant is concerned, the same is not

in dispute. It has been contended by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that on account of this enmity, the complainant has lodged a

false F.I.R against the petitioner. It has also been contended that co-accused in the case namely Manohar Singh and Bhanu Pratap Singh have already

been enlarged on bail and the weapon of offence has also been recovered. The learned Sr. counsel has also contended that nobody was injured in the

alleged occurrence and as such, the gravity of offence is not of such a degree that would disentitle the petitioner to grant of anticipatory bail.

6 The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that without the arrest of the petitioner, the empty fired cartridge cannot

be recovered and if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, the investigation of the case will be adversely impacted.

7 Having taken the overall view of the matter, particularly, the fact that co-accused in the case have already been enlarged on bail and the recovery of

weapon of offence has taken place, coupled with the fact that as a result of alleged occurrence, no one has received any injury, a case for grant of

ad-interim anticipatory bail at this stage is made out. So far as the apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondents that in case the petitioner is

admitted to anticipatory bail, the chances of recovery of fired cartridge will become bleak, is concerned, the same can be taken care of by imposing

appropriate conditions upon the petitioner while enlarging him to ad-interim anticipatory bail. Even otherwise such an apprehension is nothing but a

preconceived notion. If there is non cooperation of the petitioner in the course of investigation, the remedy of approaching this Court is always

available to the respondent.

8 Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in F.I.R No. 166/2020, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to

the following conditions:-

1 That he shall execute personal bond with one surety in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I/O.

That he shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

That he shall not leave the limits of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the permission of the concerned I/O.

That the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on 04.01.2021 at 11 a.m. and he shall continue to appear before the I/O as and when

directed to do so by the I/O.

That in case he fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the concession of bail shall stand withdrawn.

In the event of any discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in police custody

9 The aforesaid protection shall remain in force till next date before the Bench. The petition be listed for consideration on 05.02.2021 along with Bail

App No. 218/2020. On the said date, learned counsel for the respondents shall produce the case diary.