PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-2021-3-13
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 22,2021

PANKAJ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SANDEEP SHARMA, J. - (1.) By way of above captioned petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 10 of 2021 dated 10.2.2021, under Sections 452, 342, 436, 307, 506, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at P.S. Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P. ASI Ram Singh, P.S. Kothai, is present with records. Record perused and returned.
(2.) Record/status filed by the respondent-State, reveals that on 10.2.2021, complainant namely Pinki, got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, at PS Kothkai, H.P., stating therein that she has been working as part time sweeper at PNB, Kotkhai since 2013 and has been residing in room taken on rent in the building of Sh. Joginder Lal Sood alongwith her son and daughter. She alleged that on 9.2.2020, her husband namely Narian Dass, had come to her quarter from Village Chiva and they after having their meals had gone to sleep, but at 3:30am, she noticed fire on the door of her room. Besides above, complainant also alleged that she heard noise of footsteps of some persons and as such, she cried and made all other family members wake up. Complainant disclosed to the police that her husband made them to evacuate from house from the ventilator of toilet. In the aforesaid incident, complainant and other family members suffered burn injuries and as such, they were referred to IGMC Shimla. Complainant alleged that on 8.2.2020, at 2:00pm she had some altercation with bail petitioners, who extended threats to kill her. Complainant claimed before the police that she has suspicion that above named persons made an attempt to kill her by setting her room on fire. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioners on 10.2.2021, and since then, they are behind the bars. Though investigation is almost complete, but challan is yet to be filed in the competent court of law and as such, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.
(3.) Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation contends that challan is yet to be filed and there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that both the petitioners in connivance with each other, made an attempt to set the house of the petitioner on fire and as such, prayer made on their behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. While referring to the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.PC, Mr. Thakur, contends that since on 8.2.2021, some altercation took place inter-se bail petitioners and the complainant on account to phone calls allegedly given by the bail petitioners to the daughter of the complainant, motive to burn the house of the complainant duly stands established. Lastly, learned Deputy Advocate General contends that in the event of petitioners being enlarged on bail, they may not only flee from justice, rather may cause harm to the complainant and as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to grant the bail to the petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.