Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 16 November, 2017
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
CRM-M-39804 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39804 of 2017
Date of Decision: 16.11.2017
Joginder Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Yadav, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*******
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 826 dated 27.05.2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 148/149/307/450/506/201/120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.
Heard.
As per case of prosecution, Rajinder Singh @ Raja alongwith his accomplices had given beating to Surya Partap Singh and his friend Gitish Chawla in November, 2016. Surya Partap Singh intimated the matter to his father Joginder Singh and brother Kala Rana, as he was looking for an opportunity to take revenge. Kala Rana is undergoing imprisonment in a murder case and is presently lodged in Ambala Jail. On 23.05.2017, petitioner and Surya Partap Singh went to meet Kala Rana, who was produced in Kurukshetra Courts, where they hatched a conspiracy to kill 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2017 05:19:09 ::: CRM-M-39804 of 2017 -2- Rajinder Singh @ Raja. Kala Rana took responsibility to hire services of Sampat, Ravinder and Venkat Garg to eliminate Rajinder Singh @ Raja and under the plan, Joginder Singh (petitioner) left for abroad. Surya Partap Singh kept in touch with Kala Rana through messages on mobile. On 26.05.2017, Sampat, Ravinder @ Kali, Venkat Garg and Subham @ Mantri alongwith Surya Partap Singh came to office of Rajinder Singh @ Raja in Sector 17, Jagadhri. Rajinder Singh @ Raja came there at 06.00/06.30 p.m. with a friend and both went upstairs to office. Surya Partap Singh with Sampat, Ravinder @ Kali Rajput and Venkat Garg went upstairs leaving Subham @ Mantri in the car and fired at Rajinder Singh @ Raja. Bullets fired by them also hit his friend, who both fell down. They fled away from the spot under the impression that Rajinder Singh @ Raja had died. Sanjeev Gupta, who had also received firearm injury, took complainant to hospital.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is a case of false implication of petitioner, who was admittedly abroad at the time of occurrence. He had left for Bangkok on 25.05.2017 and returned on 01.06.2017. The tickets were got booked by him on 20.05.2017. The plea of alibi is fully established and the petitioner has nothing to do with the occurrence that took place on 26.05.2017.
Learned State counsel has argued that it is a case where complainant was attacked under a conspiracy. After fight between complainant and Surya Partap Singh, Kala Rana had posted a message on Facebook "Bacho ki ladai mai aise lete hain interest........just wait and watch". This message was posted by Kala Rana immediately after the occurrence, which shows that he was intimated and his help was taken in planing and execution of attack. The petitioner has not alleged that he has 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2017 05:19:10 ::: CRM-M-39804 of 2017 -3- any business dealing at Thailand or had gone there with family on a tour. His going to Thailand was deliberate to create a plea of alibi.
On giving a careful thought to submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel, I find that it is a case of rivalry between two families. The attack on complainant was planned and goons were hired for the attack. The allegation against Kala Rana is that while in jail he was in contact with his accomplices. The police has to investigate reasons for petitioner leaving the country a day in advance. Whenever an offence is committed through conspiracy, custodial interrogation of all the conspirators is required to come to right conclusion.
Keeping in view gravity of offence, facts of case and that the plea of alibi as set up by the petitioner does not appear to be probable at this stage, I find no reason to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner. The instant petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
November 16, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA )
jk JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2017 05:19:10 :::