Vedpal Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

According to the FIR, on 15.03.2024, at 04:30 a.m., the injured was told that his JCB machine has been damaged by someone. When he reached the place, he was attacked with the butt of the gun by the applicant and co-accused, due to which he sustained injuries. He had a fracture on his head.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the injured was doing illegal mining at the fields of the applicant; when the applicant got the information, he reached at the spot and stopped the persons doing illegal mining; meanwhile, the injured came and started fighting with the applicant and others.

5. Learned counsel would submit that the applicant has only applied his right of personal defence. He would referred to the 2 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2010) 2 SCC 333. Particularly, reference of para 32 of the judgment has been made, which reads as follows:- “32. Right to private defence of person and property is recognised in all free, civilised, democratic societies within certain reasonable limits. Those limits are dictated by two considerations: (1) That the same right is claimed by all other members of the society, and (2) That it is the State which generally undertakes the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. The citizens, as a general rule, are neither expected to run away for safety when faced with grave and imminent danger to their person or property as a result of unlawful aggression, nor are they expected, by use of force, to right the wrong done to them or to punish the wrongdoer of commission of offences.”

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to para 58 of the judgment in the case of Darshan Singh (supra).

7. In para 58(ii) of the judgment in the case of Darshan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not to self-creation”.

8. Reference has also been made by the applicant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukumaran v. 3 State represented by the Inspector of Police, (2019) 15 SCC 117. Para 31 of it has been referred to which reads as follows:- “31. Section 97 IPC provides that a right of private defence extends not only to the defence of one's own body against any offence affecting the human body but also to defend the body of any other person. The right also embraces the protection of property, whether one's own or another person's, against certain specified offences, namely, theft, robbery, mischief and criminal trespass. The limitations on this right and its scope are set out in the sections which follow. For one thing, the right does not arise if there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities, and for another, it does not extend to the infliction of more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence. Another limitation is that when death is caused, the person exercising the right must be under reasonable apprehension of death, or grievous hurt, to himself or to those whom he is protecting; and in the case of property, the danger to it must be of the kinds specified in Section 103. The scope of the right is further explained in Sections 102 and 105 IPC. (See observations Vivian Bose, J. in Amjad Khan v. State. [Amjad Khan v. State, (1952) 1 SCC 353 : AIR 1952 SC 165 : 1952 Cri LJ 848)” (Emphasis supplied)

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the applicant was absconding after the incident; it is only when the proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he surrendered and on his pointing out the gun, which was used in the offence was recovered. It is submitted that the injury report supports the prosecution case; witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

10. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any 4 observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

11. The incident took place in the midnight. The victim has been examined. He has stated that on the date of incident, a JCB was stopped by the applicant and others. When he reached there, he was attacked by the applicant and other persons. The applicant fired on him, but somehow, the fire missed and thereafter the applicant hit him with the butt of his gun. There is a medical report, which confirms that there were fractures on the frontal skull of the injured.

12. If A does illegal mining in the field of the B and B is not at that place, is it not incumbent on B to inform the police? Why should B on his own proceed to stop A by doing illegal mining? A can have recourse to the protection of public authority in such cases. In the instant case, the allegations are other way round i.e. it is the applicant, who reached the spot and attacked the injured. There are fractures on the skull of the injured.

13. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. The bail application deserves to be rejected.

14. The bail application is rejected. Avneet/ (Ravindra Maithani, J)

10.03.2025