Yashwant @ Jassa vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2018

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Yashwant @ Jassa vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2018

Bench: Raj Mohan Singh

CRM-M No.47012 of 2017                                            -1-

208

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                              CRM-M No.47012 of 2017
                              Date of Decision: 23.03.2018

Yashwant @ Jassa
                                                          ......Petitioner
                                   Vs
State of Haryana
                                                         .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

           Mr. Sanjay Kumar Saini, A.A.G., Haryana.

           Mr. Jagdeep Singh Rana, Advocate,
           for the complainant.

             ****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.159 dated 20.05.2017, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 449, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar.

2. Petitioner has been implicated with the aid of Section 120-B IPC and FIR was registered with the allegation that on 19.05.2017 at about 9.00 P.M., son of the complainant namely Amit was milking the cows in the plot. Atul, Abhimanyu, 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 07:24:50 ::: CRM-M No.47012 of 2017 -2- Ashwani, Anil, Sunil, Kishan and Rajbir entered the plot. Rajbir exhorted to kill Amit. Atul and Ashwani started firing on Amit. Amit died on the spot.

3. The cause of grievance was that Naresh was working as a servant with Rajbir who fled away with daughter of the complainant with the help of family members of Rajbir. In panchayat proceedings, Rajbir had to leave the village. Rajbir and his family used to visit the village. Petitioner is the real brother of Rajbir. Number of accused persons were arrayed in the FIR, out of which, Anil, Sunil, Abhimanyu, Usha, Darshna and Kishan were found to be innocent.

4. Petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of Ashwani. The petitioner was not present at the spot. His involvement was only to the extent of conspiring with each other in the commission of offence.

5. The petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2017.

6. The statement of fact has not been disputed by learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Om Parkash.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer on the ground that though the houses of petitioner and his real brother Rajbir are situated adjacent to each other, but the petitioner was very much member of the conspiracy.

2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 07:24:51 ::: CRM-M No.47012 of 2017 -3-

8. At this stage, it would be debatable as to the complicity of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused.

9. In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

10. Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.





23.03.2018                             (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
jyoti                                        JUDGE


      Whether speaking/reasoned             :      Yes/No
      Whether reportable                    :      Yes/No




                              3 of 3
           ::: Downloaded on - 14-05-2018 07:24:51 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court