RAHUL MALIK Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 68 of 2016, dated 27.06.2016, under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 29 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.

(2.) On 26.06.2016, in a horrendous incident of gunshot, allegedly fired by the petitioner herein, one Shri Param Jeet Singh (deceased), lost his life. Tersely, the facts, as emanates from the records are that on 26.06.2016 Smt. Taran Jeet Kaur (complainant) got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per the complainant, she alongwith her husband, Shri Param Jeet Singh used to run a restaurant (dhaba) at Sanawara and the said dhaba was being looked after by her, her husband and nephew Hasandeep (injured). On 26.06.2016, when she was washing clothes, around 05:00 p.m., a tourist group of 10/15 persons came in the dhaba and they were being attended upon by Naresh Kumar (attendant). Subsequently, a dispute arose qua the freshness of the meals and scuffle ensued. One of the persons from the tourist group went to the vehicle, brought a pistol and fired at her husband (Shri Param Jeet Singh). Shri Hasandeep was also hit with gun shot on his chest. Thereafter, all the persons fled away from the spot in their vehicle, having registration number of Uttar Pradesh. The deceased and Shri Hasandeep were rushed to the CHC, Dharampur. The deceased was declared dead and Shri Hasandeep was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, police registered a case and the investigation ensued. Postmortem examination on the corpse of the deceased was conducted. Police prepared the spot map and clicked photographs of the spot. CCTV footage was obtained and police recovered empty cartridges, sword like weapon, having blood, pieces of carton etc. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons fled away from the spot in a vehicle, having registration No. UP14FT-3871. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2016 and he was medically examined. Police collected the scientific evidence for analysis. Other accused persons were also arrested. Scientific samples collected from the spot were chemically examined in Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. CCTV footage was also examined, which shows the presence of the petitioner and other accused persons on the spot. During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons were on tour to Dharamshala and Shimla and while returning they stopped in the dhaba of the deceased. The petitioner and other accused persons were not satisfied with the quality of the food, so a quarrel started and the petitioner fired at the deceased. As per the prosecution, challan stands presented in the Court and now the prosecution witnesses are being examined. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as, it was the petitioner, who opened fire at the deceased and injured. The petitioner was proactively involved in commission of the crime and he killed the deceased and caused lifethreatening injuries to the injured. The petitioner alongwith other coaccused was involved in a heinous offence and in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The prosecution opposed the petition on the ground that there exists prima facie case against the petitioner and other accused persons and there is reasonable ground that the petitioner, alongwith other accused persons, committed the murder of the deceased, the offence of which the petitioner is accused of is heinous and there is possibility that the petitioner, in case enlarged on bail, may abscond. Simultaneously, the prosecution is objecting the bail application on the basis that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may try to influence the witnesses and there is possible danger of justice being thwarted by granting bail to the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, learned Counsel for the complainant and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully.