(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-7878 of 2010 v. State of Haryana

Mr. Satya Pal Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-7878 of 2010 filed by Pawan Kumar son of Hardwari and Criminal Misc. No.M-8073 of 2010 filed by Amarjit son of Sube Singh. The respective petitioners pray for the grant of regular bail in the case registered against them for the offences under Sections 302, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and also Section 326 IPC in respect of which also a charge has been framed. The FIR was registered in the case on the basis of statement of Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7878 of 2010 etc. [ 2 ] Jagmender, it is alleged that on 4.10.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. he along with his wife Salochana, mother Murti, nephew Neeraj and elder brother Randhir (deceased) were talking with each other in their house. At that time, all the accused including the petitioners-Pawan Kumar son of Hardwari and Amarjit son of Sube Singh came duly armed. The brother of the complainant, namely, Randhir (deceased) went out in the street so as to make them understand. Then Joginder raised a `Lalkara’ and in consultation said that Jai Narain today was the chance. On this, Jai Narain gave a Gandasi blow with the Gandasi that he was holding on the head of Randhir (deceased), who on receiving it fell on the ground. The complainant-Jagmender along with wife Salochana, mother Murti, nephew Neeraj tried to save Randhir from the accused, then Pawan Kumar (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-7878 of 2010) and Bijender gave blow on the left side of head and upper side of the eye; besides, Pawan and Bijender gave Gandasi blows on the arms of the complainant. Thereafter, Joginder with the Gandasi he was holding in his hand gave a Gandasi blow to Randhir (deceased) on the knee of his right leg, then Rajender gave a Lathi blow on the neck of Randhir (deceased). Then the complainant raised a noise of `save-save’, on hearing which the father of the complainant, namely, Tara Chand also came. Then all the accused with their weapons also caused injuries to him, wife and nephew of the complainant. They screamed quite a lot and on hearing their noise some people came from the village. On seeing them, all the accused with their respective weapons ran away from the spot. Joginder etc. by keeping the earlier enmity in their heart and in consultation with each other had caused injuries. Father of the Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7878 of 2010 etc. [ 3 ] complainant, namely, Tara Chand after arranging a vehicle got the injured to Government Hospital, Sonepat for the treatment. On account of the injuries suffered by Randhir, the brother of the complainant, breathed his last before reaching the hospital. Joginder etc. aforesaid in connivance with each other committed the murder of Randhir, the brother of the complainant and had caused injuries to the complainant. It was requested that action be taken. The statement of Joginder was attested by Sultan Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Ghanaur. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. Pawan Kumar (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-7878 of 2010), it is submitted, was not sent-up for trial and was kept in column No.2 of the charge-report (challan) filed by the Police. He was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the statement of Jagmender (PW-1) was recorded during trial of the case on 10.8.2009 (Annexure-P.2) in which it is inter alia stated that on 4.10.2008 at about 8.00 p.m. he (Jagmender) (PW-1) along with his mother Murti, wife Salochna, nephew Neeraj and his brother Randhir (since deceased) were sitting in his house and were talking with each other. At that time, the accused along with Bija, Rajender and Pawan came there after they had taken liquor. Rajender and Pawan were not present in the Court. It is submitted that no specific role is attributed to the petitioners Pawan Kumar and Amarjit. A reference is also made to the statement of Murti (PW-2), Salochana (PW-3) and ASI Satbir Singh (PW-5) recorded on 12.5.2010. It is submitted that the petitioners are admittedly innocent; besides, the co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Rajinder Singh has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 23.2.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7878 of 2010 etc. [ 4 ] Criminal Misc. No.M-2283 of 2010. It is submitted that Pawan Kumar (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-7878 of 2010) has been in custody since

10.12.2009 and Amarjit Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-8073 of 2010) has been in custody since 23.10.2008. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in the statement of Murti Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., injuries are attributed to Pawan Kumar and Amarjit (petitioners). Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions and contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. At this stage, while considering the question of grant of bail, the Court is not to appreciate the evidence that has been recorded by the trial Court and neither is to consider the same. The learned trial Court is seized of the matter, therefore, it would be inappropriate to go into the said question. The statement of Jagmender (PW-1), however, does not name the petitioners Pawan Kumar and Amarjit as the persons who had caused injuries. The role of Amarjit is given in the statement of Satbir Singh, ASI (PW-5), who has stated that on 23.10.2008 Amarjit (petitioner) was interrogated by Inspector Sultan Singh and in pursuance of his disclosure statement he got recovered Gandasi from his house. Amarjit is one of the persons who, it is stated, had come duly armed with the other accused. However, Jagmender (PW-1) in his statement does not name him as one of the persons who had caused injuries. To similar effect are the statements of Murti (PW-2) and Salochna (PW-3). In any case, their involvement is to be considered on the basis of the entire evidence after it has been completed. Pawan Kumar at one point of time was kept in column No.2 and was not sent-up for trial. It may also be Cr. Misc. Nos.M-7878 of 2010 etc. [ 5 ] noticed that 12 PWs remain to be examined. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Jai Parkash, Police Station Ghanaur, has submitted that in the trial of the case six PWs have been examined and the case is fixed for trial on 7.7.2010. It is also stated that 12 PWs remain to be recorded. The trial in the case is likely to take time and at this stage there is no specific role against the petitioners Pawan Kumar and Amarjit. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat shall be admitted to bail. Nothing stated or observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the case on the basis of evidence and material as adduced before it uninfluenced by any observations made herein. May 24, 2010. *naresh.k/hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge