Punjab-Haryana High Court
Crm-M-1326-2013 (O&M) vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2013
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM-M-1326-2013 (O&M) and -1-
CRM-M-7318-2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: April 3, 2013
1. CRM-M-1326-2013 (O&M)
Bhola @ Jasvir
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
2. CRM-M-7318-2013 (O&M) Goldi @ Dharmender ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Sihota, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-1326-2013). Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anshuman Mandhar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-7318-2013) Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J
1. Prayer in the above captioned petitions is for grant of regular bail to Bhola @ Jasvir, son of Mahender (petitioner in CRM-M-1326-2013) and Goldi @ Dharmender, son of Tejpal (petitioner in CRM-M-7318-2013), who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC, as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act, in a case arising out of FIR No. 75, dated 31.5.2012, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Ballabhgarh, District CRM-M-1326-2013 (O&M) and -2- CRM-M-7318-2013 (O&M) Faridabad. Since both the petitions are arising out of one and the same case, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners submit that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 30.5.2012 at about 11.30 p.m. and thereafter the FIR was lodged on the next day at about 10.10 a.m.; there was no motive on the part of the petitioners to have caused injuries to Gaurav (since deceased); the veracity of the oral dying declaration has to be tested during course of trial; no recovery was effected from the petitioners, except a motorcycle, which was owned by Goldi @ Dharmender; as many as seven persons alleged to have caused injuries to Gaurav, but medical evidence reveals only two injuries on the person of Gaurav; the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined, therefore, there is no apprehension of winning over the witnesses; the Forensic Science Laboratory report does not corroborate the oral version; and that the petitioners are behind the bars from 9.6.2012, therefore, their further incarceration is not worth.
3. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the petitions. He further submits that there was oral dying declaration suffered by Gaurav (since deceased) before his uncle, Billu, on the spot, wherein he specifically named the petitioners as assailants. He further submits that Mani Ram, PW, had witnessed the deceased in the company of the petitioners CRM-M-1326-2013 (O&M) and -3- CRM-M-7318-2013 (O&M) and their co-accused, three hours prior to the alleged incident.
4. Heard.
5. The petitioners were arrested on 9.6.2012 and after investigation the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented and the case was committed to the Court of Session. After framing of the charges, the case was posted for recording of the prosecution evidence and as many as four material witnesses, including the complainant, Billu and Mani Ram, have already been examined. The petitioners had no motive on their part to cause injuries on the person of the deceased. According to the alleged oral dying declaration, all the seven persons involved in the crime, had caused injuries to Gaurav, but only two injuries were found by the doctor during his medico legal examination. No weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioners in spite of their police remand. The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory is not fully corroborating the oral version. The applicability of Section 149, IPC, would be a moot point during the course of trial. Even the reliability of the dying declaration has to be tested during trial. The petitioners are behind the bars for the last approximately nine months. The material witnesses, who could be influenced by the petitioners, have already been examined. Further incarceration of the petitioners is not worth.
6. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, these petitions are accepted. The petitioners, Bhola @ Jasvir, son of Mahender, and Goldi @ Dharmender, son of Tejpal, CRM-M-1326-2013 (O&M) and -4- CRM-M-7318-2013 (O&M) are ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial of this case, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Faridabad.
7. It is made clear that nothing contained in this order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of case.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE April 3, 2013 Pkapoor