2022 (8) TMI 46 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - mere accident or wilful firing - Petitioner contends that earlier to the registration of the present FIR the complainant gave in writing on 12.12.2021 that it was a mere accident and he does not want to take action against any person - HELD THAT - As per the allegations in the FIR, one of the celebratory gun shot fired by the petitioner during the Gurchari ceremony on 12.12.2021, hit the lower limb of complainant-Abhishek and immediately thereafter the complainant was taken to hospital for his treatment and during the said treatment, some portion of his lower limb was amputated by the doctors and as a result of the said amputation the entire life of the complainant has been spoiled. So even if the petitioner has borne some of the medical expenses of the complainant, the same is not going to dilute the gravity of the offence stated to have been committed by him. At this stage, it is not appropriate to express any opinion regarding the delay in lodging of the FIR. The fire arm used by the petitioner at the time of occurrence is yet to be recovered. This Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of effective investigation in the present case. The present petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving FIR under Section 308 IPC and Section 25(9) of Arms Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, claiming false implication in the case. The FIR was registered six months after the incident, with the complainant initially stating it was an accident and not wanting to take action. Allegedly, celebratory firing during a ceremony led to the complainant's injury, subsequent amputation, and demand for compensation. The petitioner, a government servant, offered to cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed the petition, stating the celebratory firing by the petitioner caused the injury, leading to delayed FIR due to the complainant's hospitalization and amputation. Custodial interrogation and weapon recovery were deemed necessary. The court considered both sides' arguments.

The FIR alleged the petitioner's celebratory firing caused the complainant's injury and life-altering amputation. While the petitioner covered medical expenses, the severity of the offense remained. The recovery of the firearm and custodial interrogation were crucial for effective investigation, justifying denial of anticipatory bail. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation without expressing an opinion on the delay in FIR lodging.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, highlighting the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation. Any observations made were clarified not to indicate an opinion on the case's merits.