GAGANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr. P.C.'), seeking bail in case FIR No. 204/2022, dtd. 12/9/2022, registered at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., under Ss. 302, 382, 323, 212, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and Ss. 181, 192 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act').

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as per the status report filed by the respondent-State are that on 12/9/2022, at about 6.45 p.m., complainant Keshav Sharma was present in the shop of his uncle Ravinder Kumar alias Sethi at Dulehar, who told him that he had to go to Laluwal market. Thereafter, his uncle took his motorcycle and, in the meantime 4-5 persons on two motorcycles came there and started abusing his uncle. Though his uncle told them to stop, but they did not stop and went towards village Bolewal and Ravinder Kumar also went on his motorcycle behind them. On having suspicion that those persons might indulge in quarrel with his uncle, the complainant also went towards village Bolewal and when he reached near the gate of Government Primary School, Dulehar, he saw that his uncle and the said motorcycle riders were present there and the said motorcycle riders were touching the feet of his uncle and they appeared to be under the influence of intoxication. The uncle of complainant took out his mobile phone and said that he would call the police and get those persons medically examined. In the meantime, one of them, took out a pistol and fired on the chest of Ravinder Kumar and they also started giving beatings to the complainant and ran away from the spot. The people from the market gathered on the spot and took the complainant and Ravinder Kumar to CHC, Dulehar, from where, Ravinder Kumar was referred to Regional Hospital, where the complainant came to know that his uncle had died. Thereafter, the police recorded the statement of complainant under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, FIR in question came to be registered.

(3.) The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on the grounds that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not present with the accused persons at the time of alleged incident. He further contended that the petitioner is only 20 years of age and in case he is not enlarged on bail, his entire career will be ruined, as such, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude, so he be released on bail.