Crl. Misc. No. M-29891 of 2010 v. State of Haryana

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Chanderbhan who is the son of the deceased Shanker Lal. According to the complainant Chanderbhan, he on

15.5.2009 at around 9.00 a.m., along with his father was going to the Court at Behal for taking papers of the land from the Patwari. On the way Shanker Lal (deceased), father of the complainant, went to ease himself while the complainant himself went to buy a ‘bidi’ from a ‘rehri’. The complainant then heard a noise of ‘bachao-bachao’ and he saw that Mann Singh, Suhal, Jhabar and Mukesh had forcibly picked up his father and put him in a white colour Bolero vehicle which they took towards Sudhiwala-Rajgarh. The complainant could not see the number of the same. A white colour Pick-up Dalla, whose number was not known to the complainant, was chasing the Bolero vehicle in which Risal Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Zile Singh, Dharamvir Singh, Crl. Misc. No. M-29891 of 2010 [2] Bhola, Ram Kumar, Karan Singh and Sumer Singh residents of Bhakra, Police Station Hamirwas, District Churu (Rajasthan) were sitting and Jai Parkash @ J.P. Kadiyan-financier was accompanying them. The complainant ran after them and by taking lift on a tractor reached home. He called his brothers namely Dhan Singh and Vijay Singh. In the meantime, the above said persons came in both the vehicles and threw the father of the complainant in the street in front of his house and ran away by asking the complainant to look after him. The complainant and his two brothers had seen the said persons and could recognize them. Thereafter, by arranging transport they brought their father to Government Hospital, Behal for treatment, where the doctor, after giving first aid, referred him to General Hospital, Loharu. After the doctor at Loharu had treated the father of the complainant, he was referred to Bhiwani. However, on the way, he died and when they reached at Bhiwani, the doctor declared him dead. The death of the father of the complainant, it is alleged, is due to injuries inflicted to him by the said persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. During investigation, the police declared 13 out of 14 persons to be innocent and they were kept in column No.2 of the charge report filed by the police and only one person namely Mann Singh was arrested on 29.5.2009 and challan was filed against him. It is submitted that the petitioner on the date of incident was a juvenile. A reference has been made to his 8th class Board Pattern Examination Certificate (Annexure P3) wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 4.8.1993 and the incident, it is submitted, had occurred on 15.5.2009. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has been named as an accused only on the disclosure statement of accused Mann Singh which is Crl. Misc. No. M-29891 of 2010 [3] inadmissible in evidence and in any case Mann Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P2) in which the prosecution story has been disbelieved. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the same. The petitioner is wanted in connection with a case of murder. Mann Singh who is the main accused in the case made a disclosure statement (Annexure P1) on 29.5.2009 in which he stated that he (Mann Singh) and his nephew Vikas (petitioner) were going from Behal to their village Bhartara in a white colour Bolero vehicle. At around 9.00 a.m., they reached near Rajgarh T-point. At that time, Shanker Lal (deceased) went to ease himself near a wall. They put him in their Bolero vehicle and sped away the vehicle towards Rajgarh side. They brought down Shanker Lal at an isolated place between village Jatuwas and Dhani Khudana. Mann Singh gave a severe beating to Shanker Lal (deceased) with a stick, which was kept in the vehicle, in order to kill him and his nephew namely Vikas (petitioner) kept on holding the deceased-Shankar Lal. Due to the beating, Shanker Lal (deceased) fell unconscious. Then Mann Singh and his nephew Vikas Kumar (petitioner) put him in the vehicle. They went to Sudhiwas and threw Shankar Lal in his house and ran away. The grudge behind all this was that their land dispute was going on with Shanker Lal (deceasd). The white colour Bolero which was used in the occurrence was lying parked in village Ludas which is that of his aunt (Bua). The stick used in the occurrence was also lying in the vehicle which he could demarcate and get the vehicle and stick recovered. It is also stated that he could also demarcate the place from where they picked up Shankar Lal and inflicted injuries. Therefore, it Crl. Misc. No. M-29891 of 2010 [4] may be noticed that Mann Singh who is the main accused gave the name of the petitioner as the person who was holding Shankar Lal (deceased) while Mann Singh gave a severe beating. The statement of the co-accused though not a substantive piece of evidence but on the basis of the same investigation can be carried out. Nothing has been disclosed, as to why Mann Singh gave the name of the petitioner as the person who was holding Shankar Lal while he (Mannn Singh) was beating him. The fact that the petitioner is a juvenile is not of much significance as police is to carry out investigation in a murder case. The incident has occurred on 15.5.2009 and till date the petitioner is at large. He filed an application for grant of pre-arrest bail in the Sessions Court at Bhiwani on 7.1.2010. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 8.1.2010 (Annexure P6). Thereafter, the petitioner has not been arrested till date. The fact that Mann Singh has been granted regular bail is inconsequential. The considerations for grant of regular bail and that seeking pre-arrest bail are materially different. In a case of pre-arrest bail, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of powers to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extraordinary in character. In the facts and circumstance, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. October 12, 2010 (S.S. SARON) JUDGE