Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh vs State Of Haryana --Respondent on 29 April, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-9469 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.4.2014.
Mukesh --Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana --Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, D.A.G., Haryana.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of CRM No. M-9469 of 2014 (Mukesh Vs. State of Haryana) as also CRM No. M-10607 of 2014 (Ashok Vs. State of Haryana) as both these petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioners pending trial in case F.I.R. No.211 dated 29.06.2012 under sections 302, 120-B/34 I.P.C and sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. F.I.R in question was registered on the statement of Bhoop Singh, who is the cousin of deceased Manjit. Even as per prosecution version deceased Manjit was shot on the forehead by Ajay. Even as per Post Mortem Report placed on record at Annexure P-2, only two injuries are reflected i.e. (1) a fire arm entry wound (2) the exit wound. The allegation is of the murder of Manjit having been committed on account of a conspiracy hatched by Sunehra son of Barthal Singh, with whom a Lucky dispute/case regarding land had been pending. The present petitioners are 2014.05.02 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No. M-9469 of 2014 (O&M) -2- the sons of Sunehra and the role attributed to them is of having given kick blows after Manjit deceased had allegedly fell down on the road. Even the pistol used in the occurrence has been recovered from Ajay.
Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Ram Niwas would apprise the Court that Mukesh i.e. petitioner in CRM No. M-9469 of 2014 is in custody since 7.7.2012 and Ashok i.e. petitioner in CRM No. M- 10607 of 2014 has been in custody since 27.11.2012. Still further, learned State counsel would apprise the Court that out of the 24 prosecution witnesses cited only 7 have been examined till date. The trial as such shall take some time to conclude. That apart, the question as to whether any offence under the sections cited in the F.I.R against the petitioners in these two connected petitions is made out, would be a moot point to be adjudicated upon at the stage of trial.
For the reasons recorded above, both the petitions are allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Petitions disposed of.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE April 29, 2014.
lucky