Crl. Misc. No. M – 3162 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 3162 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 28.4.2010 Vikram ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Crl. Misc. Nos. 21503 & 21504 of 2010 Heard. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. Misc. No. M – 3162 of 2010 Reply has been filed by learned State counsel and has been taken on the record. This petition has been filed by Vikram – petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail for the offences under Sections 302, 149, 148 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in respect of which FIR No. 296 dated 27.10.2007, was Crl. Misc. No. M – 3162 of 2010 (O&M) -2- registered in Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and for which he is standing his trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. According to him, he has been victimised due to political rivalry in the village and the only allegation in the FIR is that he was sitting in the car when the injuries were caused to the deceased. He has also contended that during the investigation, nothing was recovered from his possession. The complainant has narrated in the FIR that on the day of occurence at about 9.15 AM, he had gone to Surinder in connection with his work where his brother Raj Singh had already come for managing the affairs of the Mandir. After sometime, some persons came to that place in a motor- car make Santro and one motor-cycle make Pulsar. Parveen @ Jadugar and Manipal @ Dhilla were sitting on the pillion seat of that motor-cycle. Balwan and Anil Kumar came out of the car. All those persons were holding revolvers and pistols in their hand and started firing indiscriminately at his brother Raj Singh. At that time, Chhote was sitting on the driver seat of the car, whereas the present petitioner and Naveen were sitting in the same and were instigating the other accused. He also disclosed therein as to how these accused were nursing a grudge against his brother. As a result of the gun shot received by his brother, he died at the spot. This petition has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that similarly situated accused has already been allowed the benefit of bail. When such is a case, the same cannot be refused to this petitioner. The role attributed to the present petitioner may be the same, but Crl. Misc. No. M – 3162 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the circumstances are different. In the reply submitted by learned State counsel a number of criminal cases are mentioned, in which the petitioner was named as accused. These are: FIR No.38, dated 10.3.2003, registered under Sections 392, 397, 285, 544 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Model Town Rewari, FIR No. 122 dated 10.10.2002, registered under Sections 392, 411 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Jafarpur Kalan Delhi, FIR No. 575, dated 22.12.2002, registered under Sections 392 and 397 IPC, at Police Station Jhajjar, FIR No. 363 dated 19.12.2000, registered under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh and FIR No. 296, dated 27.10.2007, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302 and 120 B IPC. No doubt, he was acquitted in all those cases after his trial, but he is still standing his trial before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in FIR No. 37 dated 21.1.2008 registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Najafgarh, New Delhi. Other cases are also mentioned in the reply which have also been registered against him. It has been submitted by learned State counsel that in the present FIR, one foreign made revolver and live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the present petitioner, during the investigation. Keeping in view the involvement of the petitioner in so many cases, it cannot be said that he can be equated with the other accused, who has already been allowed bail. It has also brought to the notice of this Court that after one of the accused was granted the benefit of bail, petitioner has committed the murder of the brother of the complainant. Crl. Misc. No. M – 3162 of 2010 (O&M) -4- It can easily be made out that if the present petitioner is granted the concession of bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence and will try to exert pressure upon the prosecution witnesses, so as to dissuade them not to disclose the actual facts of this case to the Court. No ground is made out for releasing the petitioner on bail. Therefore the petition is dismissed. April 28, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge