CRM-M-11187-2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-32897-2011 CRM-M-30456-2011 (O&M) :::::::: IN TH E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-11187-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2011 Mukesh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-32897-2011 Date of decision:23.12.2011 Thakur Lal and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent (3) CRM-M-30456-2011(O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2011 Bhagwat Dayal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-11187-2011. Mr. S.N.Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioners in CRM-M-32897-2011. Mr. N.K.Banka, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-30456-2011. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** CRM-M-11187-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-32897-2011 CRM-M-30456-2011 (O&M) :::::::: Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M-11187-2011 titled as `Mukesh Vs. State of Haryana' [for short “1st petition”], CRM-M-32897-2011 titled as `Thakur Lal and another Vs. State of Haryana' [for short “2nd petition”] and CRM-M-30456-2011 titled as `Bhagwat Dayal Vs. State of Haryana' [for short “3rd petition”] in which all the petitioner(s) have prayed for regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.109 dated 01.10.2010, under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149, 120-B IPC at Police Station Hasanpur, District Palwal. The FIR is registered by Trilok Chand who has alleged that he has retired as a Master. During the election of Panchayat, there was a verbal duel between the members of his family and the family of Munshi which was settled by the respectables of the village, but the family of Munshi was nursing a grudge against his family. There were heated arguments with Vijay (since deceased) many a times. On 30.09.2010, he along with his nephew Vijay, Anuj and his son Ashok were standing in front of their house. After sometime, Ashok and Anuj went inside the house and Vijay went towards the tube-well. It was 9.00 p.m. at night, when he heard a noise of quarrel, upon which he, his son Ashok and Anuj came outside of their house and saw Bhagwat Dayal armed with an axe, Bharat, Naresh, Satdev, Gopal, Thakur, Mukesh, Mool Chand and Hari armed with lathis. Hari and Thakur raised a lalkara that Vijay should be taught a lesson for having rivalry with them. After that, all jointly opened an attack upon Vijay. Bharat and Naresh gave blows with their sticks to Vijay and Bhagwat Dayal gave a blow of axe on the head of Vijay, as a result of which he fell down on the ground and then, Satdev, Gopal, Thakur, Umesh, Mukesh, Mool Chand and Hari caused him injuries with their sticks. He, Ashok and Anuj tried to intervene and save Vijay, on which Umesh gave a stick blow on the left side of his head. They raised hue and cry, which attracted attention of the villagers who reached at the spot and the assailants ran away. After that, Vijay was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. CRM-M-11187-2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-32897-2011 CRM-M-30456-2011 (O&M) :::::::: Learned counsel for the petitioner in the 1st petition has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The fatal blow is attributed to Bhagwat Dayal and the general allegations have been made against him. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the 2nd petition has raised somewhat similar arguments which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in the 1st petition and has also submitted that a joint lalkara is attributed to petitioner no.1 and general allegations have been made with regard to causing injury to the deceased with the stick against petitioner no.2 in the 2nd petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the 3rd petition has submitted that the injuries on the person of the deceased do not correlate with the eye-witness account. It is also argued by learned counsel for all the petitioners that as per FSL report, although the human blood has been found on the axe but the group has been found to be inconclusive and no human blood has been found on the lathi as the material has been found to be disintegrated, which could connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. In reply, learned State Counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that it is a case of an old rivalry in which the petitioners had committed pre-planned murder of Vijay. Bhagwat Dayal son of Munshi, petitioner in the 3rd petition, was armed with an axe who had caused an injury on the head of the deceased and when he fell down on the ground, the other petitioners also participated in causing injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons, i.e. lathis. The complainant Trilok Singh has already been examined as PW1 and Ashok Kumar, the other eye-witness, has been examined as PW2 who had categorically stated that they had seen the accused Bhagwat Dayal causing injury with an axe on the head of the deceased Vijay, accused Thakur exhorted his other companions to raise their arms and Mool Chand and Mukesh caused injuries to the deceased when he was lying unarmed on the ground having suffered an injury on his head with an axe. It is further submitted that all the petitioners have taken active part in the aforesaid murder of Vijay. Learned State Counsel has also CRM-M-11187-2011 (O&M) [ 4 ] CRM-M-32897-2011 CRM-M-30456-2011 (O&M) :::::::: argued that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, then they are likely to influence the witnesses or temper with the evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases, but without making any observation on merits, I do not find these cases to be fit for grant of bail. Hence, all the three petitions are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. December 23 , 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge