Point of Law: Court while deciding bail application will not minutely scan evidence collected by investigating agency, but same can always be looked into for prima-facie assessing gravity and seriousness of allegations against bail petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in case FIR No. 119 of 2022 dated 23.7.2022, registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 307, 325 and 34 of IPC and Sections 24-54-59 of the Arms Act.

2. Petitioner is in custody since 12.8.2022.

3. On notice, respondent has filed status report, which reveals that the above noted case was registered on the basis of versions of complainant Vishal Kumar, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. As per contents of above noted FIR, on 23.7.2022, the complainant had left home at about 6.40/6.45 P.M. for Jai Shiva & Company, G.T. Road Damtal. He found two vehicles parked at some distance from his office. 3-4 persons alighted from those vehicles with pistols in their hands. Complainant identified two persons namely Raj Kumar @ Sethi and Amit Kumar. It was also alleged that Amit Kumar fired at the complainant and the bullet had hit his right wrist. The wound started bleedings. Thereafter, Raj Kumar @ Sethi also fired at the complainant but he escaped. Another bullet was fired towards the office of complainant, which caused the office window to break. The complainant ran towards his house and was chased by others, who were having sickle like weapons in their hands. The incident was witnessed by Jamit Rai and Rajesh Kumar. The complainant was taken to Amandeep Hospital, Pathankot in the first instance and whereafter, he was taken to Government Hospital, Indora, District Kangra, H.P.

4. The challan is stated to have been filed in the Court on 31.10.2022.

5. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he was one of the persons, who had attacked the complainant. It has also been alleged that the petitioner was uncle of Amit Kumar and said Amit Kumar had handed over the pistol after its use to petitioner. It has also been alleged that petitioner is accused in three cases registered at Police Station, Chihata, Amritsar, Punjab. Out of these cases, two are under Excise Act whereas the third is under NDPS Act.

6. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that during the entire investigation, no legal evidence has been found against the petitioner. The implication of petitioner is only on the basis of statements of co-accused. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. The petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of Arjun Nagar, Bhatta, P.O. Chihata, Tehsil and District Amritsar, Punjab. He has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions, as may be imposed against him.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.

8. Police has completed the investigation. Though, this Court while deciding the bail application will not minutely scan the evidence collected by investigating agency, but the same can always be looked into for prima-facie assessing the gravity and seriousness of allegations against the bail petitioner. The implication of petitioner is primarily on the basis of versions given by him during interrogation or the versions of his co-accused, which cannot take the form of legal evidence. The presence of petitioner at the spot of incident is also being shown on the basis of contents of CCTV footage. Such electronic evidence needs close scrutiny during trial. This also gains significance in light of the fact that respondent has not been able to show any medical evidence that the injury received by the complainant was result of gunshot. As per allegations two bullets were fired but the police could recover only one shell. Police has also not been able to recover the weapon of offence. There is no allegation that the gunshot was fired by petitioner or any other injury was caused by him.

9. The allegations against the petitioner are yet to be prove