CRM No. M-7655 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-7655 of 2009 Date of decision: November 11, 2009 Suraj Bhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 323, 324 IPC at Police Station Siwani, District Bhiwani, vide FIR No.158 dated 2nd October, 2008. The FIR was lodged by Ved Parkash. He stated that on 1st October, 2008 at about 10/10.30 P.M., Balwan, Mandeep, Sanjay alias Bablu, Rajmal and Ranbir were coming from the fields of Balwan Singh. They were bringing harvested jawar (millet) in a tractor-trolley. After they had covered a distance of 1/1/½ killas from the field of Balwan Singh, they were attacked by accused including the petitioner Suraj Bhan. The accused were armed with Talwar, Jeli, Barchhi and lathis. Suraj Bhan (petitioner) gave a lalkara saying that enemies had CRM No. M-7655 of 2009 2 got entrapped and they be taught a lesson for taking over possession of their land. On this, assailants started inflicting blows. Suraj Bhan petitioner gave a blow with the sword (Talwar) held in his hand on the head of Balwan son of Vijay Singh. On receipt of this blow, Balwan fell down. Mandeep, Sanjay, Rajmal and Ranbir tried to rescue Balwan, but the assailants inflicted injuries to them also with their respective weapons. Thereafter, they raised hue and cry and the assailants fled away from the spot. All the injured were taken in two vehicles to Hisar. However, Balwan breathed his last on the way. Others were admitted in the Metro Hospital at Hisar for treatment. Balwan was declared 'brought dead' in the hospital by the doctor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that out of the four injured witnesses in the case, namely, Sanjay, Rajmal, Ranbir and Mandeep, none had named the petitioner. He has referred to their statements, Annexures P-6, P-7, P-8 & P-9 respectively in this regard. According to the counsel, the injury, which proved fatal, was in fact caused by Prithvi son of Risal Singh and two of the injured witnesses had named him in their statements. This apart, five persons from the side of the complainant had also been injured and a cross-version had been recorded in that respect. Learned counsel has referred the MLRs, Annexures P-11 to P-15 to show the injuries suffered by them. He has also submitted that in fact, the aggressor was the other party as an FIR (Annexure P-3) had been lodged against deceased Balwan and other persons by the petitioner's side on 17th July, 2008 at Police Station CRM No. M-7655 of 2009 3 Siwani, District Bhiwani. Mr. Cheema has also argued that role of the petitioner in the entire occurrence is very doubtful. Besides, he has been in custody for last one year. Thus, he deserves to be enlarged on bail pending trial. Learned counsel for the State has, on the other hand, referred to the FIR and submitted that Ved Parkash, who had lodged the FIR, had named the petitioner as the main accused in the very first version. According to the counsel, the fatal injury which resulted in death of Balwan, was in fact caused by Suraj Bhan (petitioner) as would be clear from statement of Ved Parkash. Learned State counsel has further submitted that Ved Parkash had stepped into the witness-box also and had reiterated the role of the petitioner in the commission of crime. According to the learned State counsel, the petitioner is the main accused and he does not deserve the concession of bail, he having caused the fatal injury to Balwan Singh deceased. Besides, 11 prosecution witnesses out of the total 27, had already been examined and trial is proceeding at a fairly fast pace. Mr. Aggarwal, has also emphasized that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail pending trial, likelihood of his influencing the witnesses, cannot be ruled out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that the FIR was lodged by Ved Parkash. In his initial version he stated that Suraj Bhan had given a blow with a sword on the head of Balwan. Balwan suffered seven injuries, out of which CRM No. M-7655 of 2009 4 injury No.7 was most grievous. The same has been described in the postmortem report as under:- “(7) Lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm on the Lt. side of skull. Obliquely placed on the temporal parietal aspect. Underlying bone intact, sub cut, ecchymosis on further dissection subdural haemotoma present.” The doctor opined that death of the deceased had taken place due to injuries on vital organs (brain, lungs), which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Ved Parkash, who stepped into the witness-box as PW1, has attributed main role in the commission of crime to Suraj Bhan (petitioner). His deposition is available on the case diary. It appears that this witness was cross-examined at length by the defence. However, he maintained that Suraj Bhan had raised a lalkara that nobody should be spared and thereafter caused the fatal injury on the person of the deceased Balwan. However, this court does not feel any necessity of expressing any opinion on the deposition made before the trial court, at this stage, as some prosecution witnesses including other injured witnesses are yet to be examined. The motive of the crime is stated to be ownership/ possession about 767 Kanals 13 Marlas of land in the village. Argument of Mr. Cheema regarding long incarceration is devoid of merit in view of the judgment in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007(1) SCC 70, wherein it was held CRM No. M-7655 of 2009 5 that merely because an accused had been incarcerated for a fairly long period, would not entitle him to bail. It has been observed by the apex court :- “In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said that there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted”. In view of the nature of allegations, heinous crime committed and the punishment it would entail in the event of conviction, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. This apart, it is stand of the State before this court that there is possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses in case enlarged on bail. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and member of District Bar Association (as stated in para 1 of petition), this apprehension of the prosecution is not without any basis. I, thus, find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Case diary be returned. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 11, 2009 'rajpal'