Read Order: Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana
Chandigarh, May 10, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to the petitioner solely accused of using a licensed double barrel gun for firing shots at the aggrieved victim, which missed the victim. The same was granted on the ground that the alleged offence “did not entail any heinous penal consequences” and also considering the fact that the petitioner did not have any criminal antecedents and the prosecution was not in a position to prove that if granted bail, the petitioner was likely to tamper with the evidence.
The present bail petitioner was the sole accused in the above FIR, and, the incriminatory role, as, assigned therein to him, was of his wielding at the crime site, a licensed double barrel gun, and, also therefrom his firing shots at the victim-aggrieved.
The counsel for the victim- complainant, vehemently opposed the granting of the craved indulgence of bail to the present petitioner, and, his above submission was rested, on the fact, that four gun shots were fired, by the bail petitioner, from the above incriminatory weapon of offence at the victim and it was by a sheer chance that none of the gun shots struck the person of the victim.
However, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur was of the opinion that the afore made submission, did not carry any weight as the act of firing of gun shots at the person of the victim by the bail petitioner, though constitutes an offence embodied in Section 307 of the IPC, but the gravity of the above offence(s) became diminished from the trite factum that even if they were fired from the double barrel gun, wielded at the crime site, by the petitioner, yet they missed the target, thus reflecting upon the poor marksmanship of the accused, and it did not entail any heinous penal consequences.
Further, the Court observed that the investigation in the matter was completed and the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the Trial Court. Also, the Court opined that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution that in the event of the bail applicant being enlarged on regular bail there was every likelihood of his fleeing from justice, and, or, tampering with prosecution evidence.
The Court did not deem it fit to order for any prolongation of the judicial incarceration of the petitioner, as, thereupon, his personal liberty would become unnecessarily curtailed, and fettered. Contrarily, it was deemed appropriate to admit the bail petitioner to regular bail.
Consequently, the instant petition was allowed, and the bail applicant- petitioner was ordered to be released from judicial custody.