Crl. Misc. No. M-21268 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-21268 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : December 7, 2010 Sunil ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent ******* CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. K.K.Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.174 dated 21.8.2009, under Sections 302,323,148,149,427 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Israna, District Panipat. The contents of the FIR as reproduced in para 2 of the petition read as under :- “Stated that I am residing on the above address and am student of B.A. Part-I in Govt. Sr. Secondary School. Yesterday, on 20.8.2009 during day time Gulab Singh alias Bintu son of Rajpal caste Jat and Ravinder caste Brahman Crl. Misc. No. M-21268 of 2010 (O&M) 2 resident of Butana P.S. Gohana in District Sonepat had came. They told me that in their village Palri there has been firing on the installing of hand pump creating wet mud. Tejpal son of Balbir Singh caste Jat resident of Palri and his brother, there was a dispute, but the villagers in the village got the matter compromised. At the evening time at 6 p.m. I, on the asking of Gulab in order to leave Gulab and Ravinder had left for village Palri on their motor cycle. We all the three went to village to the house of Gulab Singh, where he live with his mother in the house. We went on the roof and sat there. Mousi of Gulab Singh Smt. Sheela was sitting with us on the roof. At about 11 a.m. Noise of the persons was heard and then Gulab and Ravinder came out in the street and saw Tejpal son of Balbir Singh caste Jar resident of Palri and his brother Rajpal and Dharamvir caste Jat were standing in the street and with them 8/10 person were also there. I do not know their names but I knew Tejpal and his brother earlier. Tejpal had knife and his brother at a leg foot of the cot, lathi and danda. I had seen these from the roof. In my view Tejpal gave knife blow on the right side of back of Gulab Singh and other accused caused injuries to Gulab and Ravinder with their respective weapons. Because of the injuries Gulab Singh died on the spot and Ravinder got injured. Because of the injuries and he went on motor cycle to some unknown place. I in order to save my life out of fear remained concealed on the roof. Tejpal and others by leaving Gulab on the spot ran away from the spot with their respective Crl. Misc. No. M-21268 of 2010 (O&M) 3 weapons. I have come to the village on my own after finding some opportunity. Gulab @ Bintu had been murdered by Tejpal and others because water mud was in the street because of this, murder has been committed. Action may be taken. Statement heard which is correct.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. During investigation statement of PW Sheela was recorded. The said witness has stated that the petitioner was armed with a danda at the time of alleged occurrence, but no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner by the said witness. During investigation, no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner. Co-accused Virender @ Nitu, who was similarly situated has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2010 in CRM-M- No.30552 of 2010. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of concession of bail. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Although, PW- Sheela in her statement during investigation has stated that the petitioner was present at the spot armed with a danda but no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner nor any weapon has been recovered from the petitioner during investigation. Petitioner is in custody for more than a year. In these circumstances it would be just and expedient to release the petitioner on bail. Whether the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. Crl. Misc. No. M-21268 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Panipat. (SABINA) December 7, 2010 JUDGE Anand