Point of Law: While deciding application for bail, this Court is not to scan material collected by Investigating Agency minutely, but same can always be looked into for assessing seriousness and gravity of allegations against petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.05.2022, in case registered vide FIR No. 55 of 2022, dated 02.04.2022, at Police Station, Manpura, Police District Baddi, H.P. under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 506 and 34 of IPC.

2. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the case. As per petitioner, he has not committed any offence much less the offence alleged against him. It is also contended on behalf of petitioner that he has no past criminal history. Petitioner has been implicated for ulterior purposes. Petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of Village Theda, P.S.Manpura, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. It has been undertaken by petitioner that he will abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him.

3. Status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent. It is revealed that the case was registered against petitioner and his co-accused on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant Sh. Om Pal to the police alleging inter alia that the said Sh. Om Pal alongwith injured Bhajan Lal and another person named Ravinder Singh were standing near their fields when the petitioner alongwith his co-accused namely Sanju stopped there and the petitioner inflicted a blow on the head of Bhajan Lal with a sickle (Drat). On 5th May, 2022, case summary in respect of injured Bhajan Lal was received from PGI, Chandigarh and the injury received by him was described as “dangerous to life and with sharp weapon”. Accordingly, Sections 325 and 307 of IPC were incorporated in the case and thereafter on 14.5.2022, the petitioner and his co-accused were arrested. As per status report, the investigation is complete and challan has been filed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

5. It is contended on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that the genesis of the case has been suppressed by the police with ulterior purposes. He pointed out that in the MLC dated 01.04.2022 the Medical Officer has recorded the history of blunt blow with wooden stick and the source of such information is stated to be the attendant of the patient. In the same document, the name of Sh. Om Pal is written as friend of the injured. On the strength of such content of MLC, it has been submitted that in MLC, the complainant Sh. Om Pal had given a different history, whereas, while making the complaint to the police, he gave a different version. In MLC, the weapon of offence was mentioned as stick, whereas in the written complaint to the police, the weapon was stated to be a sickle. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the sickle taken in possession by the police during investigation was provided to them by the complainant himself and on its scientific examination, no blood stained was found on it.

6. Though while deciding the application for bail, this Court is not to scan the material collected by the Investigating Agency minutely, but the same can always be looked into for assessing the seriousness and gravity of allegations against petitioner.

7. Taking notice of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and after going through the records, it cannot be said that the contentions so raised are without any basis. There is a clear discrepancy between the version given by the complainant to the Medical Officer than the version given to the police. In complaint, the complainant had also mentioned the presence of third person with the petitioner and co-accused Sanju, but during investigation, no such third person has been connected with the offence. The allegations against petitioner are yet to be proved.

8. Petitioner is already in custody for the last about seven months. The trial has not yet been begun. It is likely that the trial will not be concluded within short period. Keeping in view of attending circumstances, petitioner can