Dinesh Kumar vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, J.—This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 798 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No. 799 of 2011 as both the applications filed u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. have arisen from FIR No. 190 of 2011 registered on 4.9.2011 at Police Station, Sadar, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506 Indian Penal Code. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 798 of 2011 and the same has been perused.

In Cr.MP(M) No. 798, it has been stated that the case has been registered on the complaint of one Rajinder Thakur alleging therein that on 4.9.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. when he alongwith other taxi drivers was present in the taxi stand five -six vehicles packed with many persons came from Tutikandi side, who were armed with danda and weapons, they attacked the complainant and other taxi drivers as a result of which they sustained injuries. It has been stated that no offence has been committed by the Petitioner, rather the complainant party who were large in number had quarreled with the persons of taxi union of ISBT, Shimla over the issue of taxi union in the newly shifted bus stand, Shimla. The Petitioner has nothing to do with either of the taxi union but he has been wrongly implicated in the case. It has been alleged that prima facie no case is made out u/s 307 Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner had applied anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, which was rejected.

The Petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. A prayer has been made for releasing the Petitioner on bail.

In Cr.MP(M) No. 799 of 2011 more or less the similar averments have been made as made in Cr.MP(M) No. 798 of 2011.

The bail applications have been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the grounds that both the Petitioners have filed bail applications u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla on 21.9.2011. It has been stated that some of the accused are yet to be arrested. Rakesh Negi alongwith his co-accused threw Mahinder Singh from the parking floor below 20 feet on railway track, an attempt was made to kill him. It has been stated that in last 11 years, 10 cases including FIR No. 190 of 2011 registered at Police Station Sadar have been registered against accused Bharat Bhushan. FIR No. 216 of 2011 has been registered on 9.10.2011 under Sections 341, 324, 506 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Shimla and is under investigation. In FIR No. 397 of 2002 dated 23.12.2002 registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla Bharat Bhushan has been convicted under Sections 326, 324, 323 Indian Penal Code. In some cases, he has been acquitted and some are still pending. It has been stated that FIR No. 78 of 2006 dated 4.7.2006 under Excise Act has been registered against Dinesh Kumar at Police Station, Arki. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the bail applications.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the police file. It has been stated that Rakesh Negi alongwith his co-accused threw Mahinder Singh 20 feet below on railway track from parking floor, who sustained injuries, an attempt was made to kill him. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 754 of 2011 on 26.9.2011 has granted bail to Rakesh Negi u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. and, therefore, on the principle of parity prayer has been made for granting the bail to the Petitioners also. On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that keeping in view the past conduct of the Petitioners and the allegations against them in the present case, the Petitioners are not entitled to bail.

Cr.MP(M) No. 754 of 2011 was u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure. whereas both the present bail applications are u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. There is substance in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that keeping in view of the past conduct of Petitioner Bharat Bhushan as well as nature of the allegations in the present case, he is not entitled to bail. The Petitioner Bharat Bhushan has been convicted under Sections 326, 324, 323 Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 397 dated 23.12.2002 registered at Police Station Sadar, Shimla. Some other cases are also pending against him. FIR No. 216 of 2011 has been registered on 9.10.2011 under Sections 341, 324, 506 Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sadar, Shimla against Petitioner Bharat Bhushan and that is still under investigation. The said FIR has been registered after FIR No. 190 of 2011 dated 4.9.2011 in which Petitioner has filed bail application. Therefore, Petitioner Bharat Bhushan is not entitled to indulgence of bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

In so far Petitioner Dinesh Kumar is concerned, though the investigating agency has stated that FIR No. 78 of 2006 was registered against him on 4.7.2006 at Police Station, Arki but nothing has been stated in the status report what happened to that FIR ultimately. In these circumstances, Petitioner Dinesh Kumar has made out a case for grant of bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Thus, Cr.MP(M) No. 799 of 2011 filed by Petitioner Bharat Bhushan is dismissed. Cr.MP(M) No. 798 of 2011 filed by Petitioner Dinesh Kumar is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner Dinesh Kumar in FIR No. 190 of 2011 registered on 4.9.2011 at Police Station Sadar, Shimla, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506 Indian Penal Code, he is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that he shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.