Sandeep Sharma DECISION
Sandeep Sharma, J.
THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING1. Bail petitioner, Rohit, who is behind the bars since 14.5.2020 in FIR No. 60, dated 12.5.2020, under Ss. 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506, 201 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail.
2. Status report filed by the respondent-State in terms of order dated 13.10.2020 reveals that on 12.5.2020 at 6.30 pm, persons namely Nitish and Naveen were going to their houses on scooty and motor cycle, respectively and when they were just 800 metres away from their house, bail petitioner stopped them and started abusing them. Complainant alleged that the co-accused, Rahul Chauhan stopped them and started hurling abusing at them. Complainant alleged that the co-accused named herein above after having hurled abuses at them, went towards Electricity Board Colony, as such, they also turned their vehicles towards Electricity Board Colony and stopped co-accused namely Rahul Chauhan to know the reason for hurling abuses. However, co-accused Rahul Chauhan, again hurled abuses and called his family members on the spot, whereafter, bail petitioner, who happened to be brother of accused Rahul alongwith his father and uncle, reached the spot and allegedly gave beatings to complainant as well as Nitish using baseball bat. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above came to be lodged against the bail petitioner alongwith other two co-accused. Bail petitioner Ranjeet Singh and Rahul Chauhan already stand enlarged on bail whereas, bail petitioner is behind the bars since 14.5.2020.
3. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent Court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General further contends that the medical evidence on record clearly reveals that the victim Naveen suffered serious injuries on his head and in case, he was not taken to hospital immediately, he would have died on account of injuries inflicted on his head. While referring to medical evidence available on record, Mr. Sharma, contends that though the victim Naveen stands discharged from hospital, but still he is not normal as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner at this stage, who in event of being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice but may again make an attempt to attack the victim.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that other accused namely Ranjeet Singh and Rahul Chauhan already stand enlarged on bail, whereas, bail petitioner is behind the bars for almost 6 months. As per case of prosecution, initially dispute occurred inter se accused Rahul Chauhan and persons namely Nitish and Naveen, whereafter, allegedly on the call of co-accused Rahul Chauhan, bail petitioner alongwith his father reached the spot and gave beatings to the victim namely Naveen and Nitish. However, as per statement of complainan........