PARAS RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Paras Ram - petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 98 dated 4.9.2001, under Sections 307/324/323/148/149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, 'Indian Penal Code), and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar.

(2.) The circumstances which led to the filing, of the case need to be noticed briefly. According to the version rendered by Hardesh Kumar on 4.9 2001, he alongwith Sushil Kumar and Sandeep were going on motor cycle No. PB- 08-3492 in order to deposit telephone bill in the telephone office. At about 10.45 a.m. when they reached near the evening college of Basti Nau, one Maruti Esteem car having, registration No. PB-10Y-(T)-7740, driven by Shital son of Paras Ram came from behind and dashed into their motorcycle driven by the complainant. They stopped the motorcycle at some distance. In the meanwhile, Paras Ram armed with 12 Bore gun, Shital armed with Kirpan, Rajan son of Paras Ram armed with Kirpan. Rinku son of Madan Lal armed with Kirpan and Kitty son of Bhajan armed with Base Bat came out of the car. Shital and his co-accused raised Lalkara that the complainant should not be allowed to go alive from there. Thereafter, Paras Ram fired from his gun and the fire shot hit Sushil Kumar on his head as a result of which he fell down. Paras Ram fired another shot which hit on the head of the complainant and on the neck of Sandeep. Kitty also hit Sandeep with Base Bat on the backside of his neck. Shital further caused injury to Sushil Kumar with his toe as a result of which he fell down on the round. Rinku inflicted Kirpan blow to the complainant. On the alarm raised by them, Satish Kumar. Bajaj Karan and other persons, collected there. Seeing the persons collected the accused escaped from the spot in the car.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, while pressing for bail, plainly contended before me that a cross case had been registered against the complainant party under Sec. 326 Indian Penal Code as the petitioner too had suffered grievous injury on his aril which led to his confinement in the hospital where he was still undergoing treatment in respect of the injury suffered by him. Additionally, it was pointed out by him that all the co-accused in the case had been granted the benefit of bail. It was further submitted that the petitioner-accused was granted interim bail and finding opportunity a false case bearing FIR No. 49 dated 20.5.2001 had been registered against him with Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar in order to prevent him for obtaining concession of bail. Opposing the submissions made, it was strenuously contended by the State counsel that not only the allegations against the petitioner accused as well as his co-accused are serious because they had caused fire arm injuries but further during the period of interim bail, petitioner-accused had committed another grave crime for which FIR No. 49 dated 20.5.2001 had been registered as noticed above. He in particular referred to the medical report of Sushil Kumar issued by Satyam Hospital, Jalandhar City which shows that five fire arm injuries had been suffered by him out of which injury No. 1 to 4 were declared dangerous to life and injury No. 5 was grievous in nature. It was further pointed by him that Sandeep had also suffered fire arm injury which was declared dangerous to life. It has been further stated that Hardesh Kumar had also suffered injuries, out of which injuries No. 1 to 3 had been declared dangerous to life. On the basis of above noted circumstances, it was contended by the State counsel that concession of bail be not extended to the petitioner-accused. It is clear from the record that bail application of the petitioner-accused was dismissed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50819-M of 2001 by this Court on 19.2.2002. Thereafter, another petition filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1521-M of 2002 was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.1.2002. It is manifest from the record that there is no change in the fact situation after his applications were dismissed twice. Even otherwise, taking into account the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner-accused, he does not deserve the concession of bail.