Allowed

Baljit Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jan 2023CRMPM/2801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted pre-arrest bail to a serving Army personnel accused of furnishing incorrect date of birth under IPC 336 and possessing unlicensed firearms under Arms Act 30, noting insufficient evidence to warrant detention.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions of availability, non-interference, and no leaving the country.

Baljit Singh Vs State of Hp — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MP(M) No. 2801 of 2022.

¶3

Decided on : 3rd January, 2023.

¶4

Baljit Singh ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ... .Respondent.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. A.G.

¶9

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) .

¶10

The petitioner has prayed for grant of pre arrest bail in case FIR No. 286, dated 11.12.2022, under Section 336 of the IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, H.P.

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

…2…

¶13

Petitioner was admitted to interim bail on 23.12.2022 and thereafter he has joined investigation.

¶14

On 11.12.2022, an information was received at Police Station Sadar Hamirpur that a fire had been shot in Village Chhabot. Police party reached the village, where the complainant Shri Ashwani Kumar got recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., alleging inter alia that he was resident of the village and was living their along with his family members. At about 5.30 in the morning, he had noticed that a window of his kitchen was broken. It was also noticed that there were marks of gun shot fire. On his asking, his mother Smt. Asha Devi disclosed that at about 2.30 in the night she had heard gun shot.

¶15

The case was being investigated and on 15.12.2022 again the same incident happened. The police has entertained suspicion against the petitioner as tower location of the mobile phone used by petitioner

¶16

…3…

¶17

was found in and around village Chhabot on both days when the incidents as alleged have taken place.

¶18

Status report further reveals that petitioner has been maintaining relations with a female in the same village and had visited her on both the nights.

¶19

On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that his implication is false. As per petitioner, he has no role in the alleged incidents. He is a serving Army personnel and is being implicated with ulterior motive. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that no evidence has been collected against him by the police.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

¶21

The case was registered on 11.12.2022 and thereafter the police has got sufficient time to investigate. However, nothing incriminating has been found against the petitioner till date. Only, it has been

¶22

…4…

¶23

alleged against petitioner that his mobile phone was found in the tower location catering to village Chhabot on both the nights on which alleged incidents of firing of gun shot had taken place. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The police is not even aware as to what type of weapon was used to fire gun shots. Even otherwise, the facts do not suggest any specific motive for firing gun shot to break window glass.

¶24

No case for custodial interrogation has been made out against the petitioner. Petitioner is a serving Army personnel and he cannot be allowed to be detained in custody merely on suspicion, which has found no corroboration till date. The respondent has itself mentioned in the status report that the reason of petitioner visiting village Chhabot was his alleged relation with a female. This is not a case which otherwise warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner.

¶25

…5…

¶26

Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Pathiar, Post Office Nihari, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and is also a serving Army personnel. There is no apprehension of his absconding and fleeing from the course of justice.

¶27

Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the instant petition is allowed and in the event of arrest of petitioner in case FIR No. 286 dated 11.12.2022, under Section 336 of the IPC and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. This order shall, however, be subject to following conditions:-

¶28

(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available for investigation as and when required.

¶29

(ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as

¶30

…6…

¶31

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to nay police officer;

¶32

(ii) That the petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.

¶33

However, it is made clear that the observations

¶34

made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the

¶35

present petition only.

¶36

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶37

3^rd January, 2023. (jai)

Baljit Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljit Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Pardeep Kumar

Ajay Kaushal Vs Kuldeep Sharma

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Tokpen Tamang

Bhadur Singh and Anr. Vs Dr. Pankaj Lalit and Anr.

Ranjit Yadav Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Lekh Ram through His Deceased through His LRs Savitri Devi and Others Vs State of H.P.