Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit vs State Of Haryana on 22 January, 2013
Author: K. C. Puri
Bench: K. C. Puri
CRM NO. M-40694 OF 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM NO. M-40694 OF 2012 (O&M)
DECIDED ON : 22.01.2013
Amit
...Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
AND
CRM NO. M-37767 OF 2012 (O&M)
Mukesh
...Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI
Present : Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner in
CRM No. M-40694 of 2012.
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate,
for the petitioner in
CRM No. M-37767 of 2012.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.
K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)
Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of two petitions bearing CRM No. M-40694 of 2012 titled as, "Amit vs. State of Haryana" and CRM No. M-37767 of 2012 titled as, "Mukesh vs. State of Haryana", as the same have arisen out of CRM NO. M-40694 OF 2012 (O&M) -2- the same FIR. The facts are being taken from CRM No. M-40694 of 2012.
As per allegations of the prosecution, SHO Police Station Sadar Gurgaon, along with police party was present at Bakhtawar Chowk for patrolling and to check crime. A secret informer came and informed him that Mukesh and Jitender have formed a gang of theft and robbery done of vehicles in Haryana, Delhi, NCR Area and other States. The said theft vehicles are sold out after changing their engine no. and chasis no. in Rajasthan, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and other States. Today, the members of gang of Mukesh and Jitender, Amol-Rajasthani, Amit r/o Delhi, Aniket r/o Bihar, on the asking of Mukesh and Jitender are planning to commit dacoity of english liquor vend in Sector 51 GGN, armed with weapons, in vehicle No. RJ-03CA-0730 Ford Fiesta, black colour and now they all are sitting in the vehicle in open plot in Section 47 HUDA. If a raid is conducted, they can be apprehended with weapons, while planning to commit dacoity. Accordingly the raiding party was formed. At around 10:00 P.M, he along with co-officials in government vehicle reached Sector 47 HUDA near to open space told by secret informer. ASI got switched off the light of the vehicle and parked and CT Sandeep 3907, CT Bijender 779 who were already in civil dresses were asked to go silently near the parked vehicle and listen to their talks and after hearing the talk, inform them by giving dipper by the torch light. ASI along with other officials silently covered the CRM NO. M-40694 OF 2012 (O&M) -3- vehicle from all sides. CT Sandeep and CT Bijender after hearing their talks, gave signal through dipper of the torch. After receiving the signal, ASI with the help of other officials covered the vehicle and gave lalkara to the people sitting in the vehicle that police has covered up them from all the sides. So, they raise their hands and come out from the vehicle and surrender themselves to the police. The driver of government vehicle parked his vehicle in front of their vehicle after lightning the head lights. In the meantime, the driver of Ford Fiesta came down from the vehicle and fired two shots directly upon the police party with an intention to kill them but due to light of the government vehicle, the firing by driver of the Ford Fiesta could be watched and the police party by way of taking laying position saved themselves.
Amit, Anmol @ Amol Kumar, Surya Narayan, Aniket and Mukesh were arrested along with their weapons at the spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Amit has submitted that prosecution story is based upon the secret information only. Neither any independent witness was joined at the time of raid nor recovery of any weapon has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2012.
I have considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same.
The joining of independent witness is not the Rule of Law but it is the Rule of Prudence and that fact can be considered CRM NO. M-40694 OF 2012 (O&M) -4- at the time of final decision of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Amit has further contended that offence under Section 307 IPC has not been attributed to the present petitioner and as such, he is entitled to bail.
I have considered the said submission also but do not find any force in the same at this stage.
Petitioner Amit has taken active part in the occurrence. So, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out.
Dismissed.
So far as petitioner Mukesh is concerned, as per allegations of the prosecution, the petitioner has only entered into the conspiracy and provided the weapons of offence. The allegations against him are based upon the statement of co- accused. According to the allegations, he was not present at the time of occurrence.
The petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2012. No recovery is stated to have been effected from the petitioner.
So, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition stands accepted. The petitioner Mukesh is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.
JANUARY 22, 2013 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE