Pawan Kumar @ Billu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Anoop Chitkara, J

For committing robbery and firing upon the victim, the petitioner, who is facing trial in a similar offence, in Punjab and is also under incarceration in

the present FIR, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail in FIR No.58/16, dated

May 23, 2016, registered under Sections 392, 397, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25-54-59 of the Arms

Act, in Police Station, Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P., disclosing non bailable offences.

I have gone through the police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional

Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without admission and without conceding even if it is believed that the

petitioner had fired upon complainant-Kashmir Singh, still such fire did not substantially injured the victim and at the most the offence would be under

Section 324 IPC. He further stated that the petitioner is in jail for sufficient time and he is entitled to bail.

To the contrary, Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Divya Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General

submits that the offence under Section 397 IPC deals with the specific situation where the robbery or dacoity is committed with an attempt to cause

death or grievous hurt. He further stated that the police had recovered a country made pistol pursuant to statement under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act made by the petitioner Pawan Kumar. He further submits that the petitioner and his accomplice along with the victim were noticed in

CCTV Footage.

In the present case, the statement of the victim and the recovery of country made pistol based on disclosure statement of the petitioner are relevant

factors.

Indisputably the trial has reached a final stage. If this Court grants bail or rejects the same, it is likely to influence the trial Court to arrive at a

verdict that otherwise should be independent of all external influences whatsoever.

Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the

matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.

Petition dismissed.