Dismissed

Dheeraj Kumar Dharmani v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Mar 2024CRMPM/292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in FIR arising from an attack on an informant with deadly weapons amid alleged business rivalry. The court found they were named in the FIR, had criminal antecedents, and the victim remained hospitalised; applying Supreme Court precedent that pre-arrest bail is extraordinary, it dismissed all three petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dheeraj Kumar Dharmani Vs State of Hp — Anticipatory Bail | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MP(M) Nos. 292, 293 and 294 of 2024 Reserved on: 28.2.2024 Date of Decision: 06.03.2024.

¶3

1. Cr. MP(M) No. 292 of 2024 Dheeraj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 2. Cr. MP(M) No. 293 of 2024 Pranav Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent 3. Cr. MP(M) No. 294 of 2024 Sahil Mehta ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶6

For the petitioners : M/s Subhash Sharma and Mr Prantap Sharma, Advocates, in all the petitions. For the Respondent : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Inspector/ SHO Roop Lal, Police Station Bilaspur, H.P., in all the petitions.

¶7

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶8

¶9

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶10

The police received information on 23.2.2024 that a quarrel was taking place near Dalip Bilkon Company. The police went to the spot for verification of the information. The informant made a statement that he was going to Bilaspur via Mandi-Bharari road. He went to meet the General Manager of DBL Office, Railway. He was discussing the issue of employment to local persons in preference to the outsiders. Saurav Patial, Manjeet Nadda, Pawan, Sahil Mehta, Moni, Gaurav Goka, Suraj, Pankaj Rao, Surya Gautam, Kulbhushan alias Lucky and Dheeraj Dharmani came to the spot and attacked the informant with sword, pistol, khukuri, rod etc. They also gave beatings to Puranjan Thakur, Ishan Thakur and his nephews Lakshay Thakur and Sandeep Thakur. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation.

¶11

The petitioners filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 67 of 2024 was registered on 23.2.2024 and the names of petitioners were added subsequently. They were falsely implicated and they have nothing to do with the commission of the offences. The informant had a business rivalry with the petitioners. 102

¶12

¶13

contractors had gathered to obtain the works in the Railway project. The police had the video footage of the incident, which shows that the petitioners were in no way involved in the incident. The petitioners enjoy a good reputation. They would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

¶14

The police filed a status report reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the police seized the DVR containing the CCTV footage. The police arrested some of the accused and seized the vehicles used in the incident. Saurav Patiyal made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of one sword and two sticks. The petitioners had absconded after the incident. The recovery of the weapon of offence and the vehicle is to be effected from Dheeraj Dharmani. FIR No. 36/2009, dated 17.2.2009, FIR No. 197/2013, dated 29.9.2013, FIR No. 172/2013, dated 28.8.2013, FIR No. 1 of 2014, dated 2.1.2014 and FIR No. No. 1 of 2017, dated 2.1.2017 are pending against the petitioner Dheeraj Dharmani before the Court. FIR No. 232 of 2023 is pending against the petitioner-Sahil Mehta. FIR No. 202 of 2009, dated 22.11.2009 and FIR No. 113 of 2011, dated 26.7.2011

¶15

¶16

are pending trial against the petitioner-Pranav. The informant is undergoing treatment in the hospital.

¶17

I have heard M/s Subhash Sharma and Prantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶18

Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. They had gathered with other contractors for the demand of work and were not responsible for the injuries sustained by the informant. The petitioners would join the investigation and would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶19

Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that it was specifically mentioned in the FIR that the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons which falsified their version that they had gathered to demand the work for themselves and other

¶20

¶21

persons. The informant/victim is seriously injured and is undergoing treatment at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. The investigation is continuing and releasing the petitioners on bail will adversely affect the same. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

¶22

I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶23

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

¶24

“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the

¶25

¶26

court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

¶27

It was stated in the petitions that the petitioners

¶28

were not specifically named in the FIR; however, this is not correct. The name of the petitioners Sahil Mehta, Moni and Dheeraj Dharmani were specifically mentioned in the FIR. It was further mentioned that they had attacked the informant with a sword, pistol, khukhri, rod etc. The use of deadly weapons by the petitioners falsifies their plea that they had gathered at the spot to demand the work for them.

¶29

It was admitted that the petitioners have a business rivalry with the informant. Therefore, they had reason to attack the informant. It was specifically asserted that the petitioners were involved in the commission of similar offences in the past and various FIRs were registered against them. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman Prasad Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Cr. Appeal No. 1158 of 2001, decided on 11.12.2021 that when the criminal cases were registered against the accused and they had used a deadly weapon for the commission of the offence, granting pre-arrest bail to them is not justified.

¶30

¶31

In the present cases also, the petitioners have a criminal history. Therefore, they cannot be held entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail, especially when the offence is continuing and the informant is admitted to the hospital.

¶32

In view of the above, the present petitions fail and the same are dismissed.

¶33

The observation made herein before shall remain

¶34

confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶35

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶36

6^th March, 2024 (Chander)

Dheeraj Kumar Dharmani v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dheeraj Kumar Dharmani v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kalra and Others Vs NHAI and Others

Meena Devi Vs Union of India and Others

Nikki Devi Vs Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Competent Authority Under NHAI and Another

Pranav Upadhyay Vs State of Hp

Savitri Vs State of Hp

Sanjay Thakur Vs State of Hp