IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

Cr. MP(M) No. 2902 of 2023 Reserved on: 24.11.202.3 Date of Decision: 08.12.2023.

Bhutto ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Ms. Avni Kochhar, Deputy Advocate General.

HRakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking the pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 188 of 2023, dated 22.10.2023 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Ghumarwin for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, which was converted into Sections 325, 307 and 109 of

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

IPC. It is asserted that the petitioner is working as a driver in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Taxation and Excise, Bilaspur. His father filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the informant in 2018 which was decided in favour of the petitioner’s father on 20.6.2022. The informant was restrained from changing nature, cutting the trees or causing any kind of interference with the land in dispute. Possession of land was handed over to the peutitioner in the presence of Police officials, Gram Panchayato Pradhan, Up-Pradhan etc. The informant used to pick uCp quarrels repeatedly with the petitioner. The petitioner’s father and his wife were fencing the land on 22.10.2023. The informant and his family members came to the spot and restrained them. They abused the petitioner and pelted Hstones at them. FIR was lodged against the informant and his family members. The petitioner was not present on the spot but he was wrongly mentioned in the FIR. The custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is a Government servant and there is no chance of his absconding. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The respondent-State filed a status report asserting that the informant Safiq Mohammad was working in the courtyard of his house on 22.10.2023 at 8.30-9.00 AM. His brother Aslam and sister-in-law Parveen were also present near the house. Noor Deen, petitioner and petitioner’s son came to the field. Noor Deen told them to bring a stick and give beatings to Aslam and Parveen. Nadeem and the petitioner brought an iron rod used for reumoving the nails. They gave beatings to Aslam and Paorveen, who sustained injuries. The police registered Cthe FIR and conducted the investigation. The police seized the clothes. As per the medical evidence, the nature of the injury was grievous (hemorrhagic contusion) and could be fatal. Hence, the offences punishable under Sections 325, 307 and 109 Hwere added. Noor Deen produced two iron rods which were seized by the police. The petitioner had also filed a complaint against the informant party. FIR No. 190 of 2023 was registered which is being investigated. The custodial interrogation is required. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Ms. Veena Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Avni Kochhar learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent-State.

4. Ms Veena Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the MLC, the nature of injuries was stated to be simple, however, they were changed to grievous. This shows that the prosecution has tampered with the evidence. The petitioner is a Government servant and he is not likely to abscond. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner had used an iron bar to cause hurt to the victim’s head. The Medical Officer had found the injury to be grievous, which could have been fatal. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given consider