IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIM.LA Cr.MP(M) No. 302 of 2020 Date of Decision : 20^th March, 20 20 Sukh Chain ...Petitioner.

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh f...Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the petitioner : Mur. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for the State.

Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral)

The petitioner, who is apprehending his imminent arrest on being arraigned as an accused, in case FIR number 22/2020 dated 18.2.2020, registered under Sections 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., disclosing non-bailable offences, has come up before this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The status report stands filed. I have heard learned counsel, for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/ State. I have seen the status report(s) as well as

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

the police file, to the extent it was necessary for deciding the pres.ent petition and the same stands returned to the police official through counsel appearing for the State.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had joined the investigation as and when thef Investigating Officer so directed him. Learned Additional Advocate General did not dispute this averment. t FACTS

4. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation, reveals that :

(a) That on 18.2.2020 at 12:30 noon, the Police Station, Kumarsain, received an information that the bail petitioner Sukh Chain has fired upon Chander Kumar.

h On receipt of such, the Police officials reached at Civil Hospital, Kumarsain and recorded his statement under g Section 154 Cr.P.C. The injured stated that on

18.2.2020 at 12:00 noon, he alongwith son Naresh and Dinesh, were spraying his orchard and had linked a water pipe from the tank. He further stated that the orchard of bail petitioner, Sukh Chain is nearby. Sukh Chain asked him not to take pipe from his field and on this, the injured told him that he will take pipe from here itself. On this, Sukh Chain started hurling abuses at him and threatened him that he will fire upon him. After that, he brought his gun and fired upon him and the bullet hit his left leg, thigh and knee.

(b) On the basis of this complaint, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the present petitioner.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

5. Pre-trial incarceration needs to be justified depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, accused fleeing f.rom justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. The Court is under the Constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused, the society, and the State.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS :

6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 : A Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court holds:-

“30. …It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or noCt depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily g justifying the grant or refusal of bail.”

7. In Siddharam Satingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, Supreme Court holds:

“Relevant consideration for exercise of the power:

111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the