Hp No. 49 of 0700 · High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2008

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. On 13.1.2008 at the relevant time the petitioner remained in a function from 11 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. At about 3.30 p.m. after the function was over, the petitioner came to Aut Bazar and saw number of persons gathered at Police Station, Aut. There he was told that G.La Villa, Vice President of Gammon India, has been attacked by some persons. The petitioner had visited Police Station 2 -3 times in between 16.1.2008 to 23.1.2008 in connection with gun licence of his father but he was not questioned by the police about the present case. On 27.1.2008 the petitioner received a telephonic call from Police Station, Aut that three persons, namely, Chuni Lal, Tejaswi and Devinder have named him as co-accused in the present case. The police is proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of false allegations. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the case.

The bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that co-accused have named the involvement of the petitioner in the case. The petitioner has criminal record. He is involved in F.I.R. No.51 dated 16.5.2006, Police Station, Banjar, F.I.R. No.62 dated 21.6.2003, Police Station, (cid:133)4(cid:133) Kullu, F.I.R. No.252 dated 25.5.2005, F.I.R. No.153 dated

19.12.2006. The petitioner is an influential person, therefore, he is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. In the investigation, it has come that petitioner is a contractor in the Project. The company of the complainant had given some financial benefit to its labour and the contractors of the Project were opposing that the financial benefit which was given by the company to its labour on the ground that the contractors will have to give the same benefit to their labour. The complainant in his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. except for certain facts has not stated why his car was stopped by masked persons and what grievance those masked persons had against the complainant. The motive of the masked persons to stop the vehicle of the complainant, pointing of revolver towards his tample, giving him beatings has not been disclosed. The complainant in his statement has stated that he could recognize those persons if those are presented before him with their faces covered with handkerchiefs. It has not been pointed out that during investigation test identification was conducted. The unnumbered Maruti 800 car with specific identity, which was allegedly used in the commission of offence, has not been recovered. It has been submitted that there are seven accused in the case, four have already been released on bail by the Court below and bail application of one accused Rajinder is pending. The fact remains that in the present case, except for bald allegations of co-accused, the investigating agency has not collected any authenticated material against the petitioner, who has joined the investigation. The law will take its course as far as criminal cases (cid:133)5(cid:133) pending against the petitioner are concerned. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. March 19, 2008 (soni) ( Kuldip Singh ), J.