BIDHI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petitions, filed under Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners are seeking bail in case FIR No. 26/2023, dtd. 8/3/2023, registered at Police Station BSL Colony, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., under Ss. 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 8. 03.2023, complainant Paras Balu made a complainant to the police, stating therein that on that day, he alongwith his younger brother Puneet was coming back to their house from the house of their Bua in their car, bearing registration No. HP-31C-6975. At about 1:30 P.M., when they reached in BBMB Colony road in front of the quarter of one Chaman Lal, the petitioners came there and started hurling abuses at them. When he and his brother Puneet asked them not to hurl abuses, then, Bidhi Chand hit them with a wicket stick and Jatin and Manoj Kumar gave them fist blows. However, Anmol and Dev residents of BBMB Colony, Sunder Nagar rescued them from the clutches of the petitioners. After the said incident, the petitioners left the spot, while threatening the complainant and his brother with dire consequences. As a result of beatings given by the petitioners, the complainant sustained injuries on his right hand and his brother, Puneet sustained injuries on his head, nose and right shoulder. The medical examination of the complainant and his brother, Puneet was conducted at Civil Hospital, Sunder Nagar, wherefrom, Puneet was referred to Lal Bahadur Shastri Medical College, Ner Chowk, Mandi. On the same day, he was further referred to IGMC, Shimla/PGI Chandigarh. However, the relatives of injured Puneet, took him to Bahra Hospital, Kharar, Chandigarh. The Medical Officer issued MLC and opined that "Injury caused to Puneet could have been dangerous to life if the extent of injury would have been more severe." Consequently, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be registered against the petitioners and on 16/3/2023, they were arrested.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further submitted that taking into consideration the age of the petitioners, i.e. 20, 22 and 23 years, if they are not enlarged on bail, their career will be ruined. They also submitted that the petitioners are behind the bars since their arrest and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, as trial may take sufficiently long time to conclude.