ANKUSH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, seeking regular bail in case FIR No.155 dated 25.05.2020, under Sections 323/506/307/188/147/148/149 of the IPC and Sections 25/27/54 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sirsa Sadar, District Sirsa, Haryana.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the present case was registered on the complaint of complainant Rajinder Kumar son of Darshan Ram, who, inter alia, stated that on 24.05.2020 at about 1:00/1:30 pm, he, his father Darshan Chand, his brothers Pritam Kumar, Satpal, Dharampal son of Munshi Ram, Ram Chand son of Bag Chand and 5-6 other persons were laying pipeline in their field. It was to be laid from the fields of Kashmir Chand son of Karam Chand, Tilak Raj and other persons. When they started laying pipeline in the field of Kashmir Chand and others, the accused abused them and asked to stop the work of laying pipeline. Complainant asked them (accused persons) not to abuse them because they had no concern with it, but they threatened them with dire consequences. On this, complainant and his family members called respectables of village including Ram Chand, ExSarpanch of village Sikanderpur who was relative of accused Rajan. But the accused persons did not mend their behaviour rather they continued to visit the spot along with weapons and to give threatenings to kill them and it lasted till 8:00 pm. At about 9:30 pm, accused Harkishan and Rajan armed with kassis came there and grappled with them. After 5-10 minutes, accused Ankush (petitioner-accused) came there along with his father's licensed gun 12 bore. Accused Harkishan raised an alarm and threatened to shot them. But the villagers snatched his gun. Thereafter, he brought his revolver and fired three shots with an intent to kill them but luckily those shots did not hit anyone. A case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 506 and 188 of the IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered against the accused persons.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he never fired any shot at any person.