SUKDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely, Sukhdev Singh ( his name as per the status report is Sukhdeep Singh), who is behind the bars since 10.2.2020, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 14/2020, dated 10.2.2020, under Sections 341,427,307, 109, 120?B, 201, 202 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Careful perusal of the status report filed in terms of order dated 14.5.2020 reveals that on 10.2.2020 complainant Gitesh Kaith, lodged a complaint at police Station, Sadar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, stating therein that he is a driver of car bearing registration No. HP? 64?A?7539 owned by Sh. Raj Kumar Mittal. He alleged that on 10.2.2020, while he alongwith Smt. Amita Mittal wife of Sh. Sanjay Mittal was going towards Saproon post office from Solan Bazar, one car of Tata make ( number plate missing) overtook his vehicle and stopped the same. He alleged that three persons sitting in the aforesaid car attacked him as well as Smt. Amita Mittal with axe and smashed front and side windows of the car being driven by him. He alleged that had he not saved himself, he alongwith Smt. Amita Mittal would have suffered grievous injuries and as such, appropriate action, in accordance with law, be taken against the occupants of the car of Tata make. On the basis of aforesaid information furnished by the complainant, police apprehended the vehicle of the accused at Parwanoo check post and brought all the occupants of the car including present bail petitioner to police Station, Sadar, District Solan, H.P. After completion of codal formalities, police lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, against all the accused and since 10.2.2020 they all are behind the bars. One of the co?accused Rohit Sharma, who had allegedly facilitated the stay of occupants of the car of Tata make in Solan already stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 30.4.2020 passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No.491 of 2020.

(3.) Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting that the challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, contends that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed with the co?accused, prayer having been made by him deserves outright rejection. Learned Additional Advocate General while referring to the record submits that it stands duly established on record that the bail petitioner alongwith co?accused had been staying at Solan for quite long prior to alleged incident and they had done recce of the house as well as shops of Raj Kumar Mittal and his family members. Learned Additional Advocate General further contends that it has come in the investigation that bail petitioner alongwith co?accused had come to Solan with an intent to kill Raj Kumar Mittal and his other family members and as such, present bail petitioner deserve no leniency. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submits that since bail petitioner hails from the State of Haryana, it would be difficult to secure his presence in trial in the event of his being enlarged on bail and as such, his application may kindly be rejected.