Crl. Misc. No. M-9296 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9296 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 28.9.2010 Suresh Kumar ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the complainant. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail has been filed on behalf of Suresh Kumar in case FIR No. 181 dated 25.12.2008 registered under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa. In this case, notice of motion was issued on 29.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, he is not involved in the alleged incident. Two different opinions have been given by the Doctors of two different hospitals, which makes the involvement of the petitioner highly doubtful. As per opinion given by the Doctor of General Hospital, Sirsa, there was no injury on the body of deceased, whereas, as per postmortem report conducted at PGIMS, Rohtak, there were 12 injuries on the body of Crl. Misc. No. M-9296 of 2010 (2) deceased. As per opinion given by Medical Board of PGIMS, Rohtak, injury on the private part of the deceased was instant but no such report was given by the Doctor of General Hospital, Sirsa. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to party faction in the village. Learned counsel also submits that as per case of the prosecution, the petitioner caused an injury by giving kick blow on the private parts of the deceased, whereas, as per postmortem report conducted at General Hospital, Sirsa, no injury was found on the private parts and even no external mark of injury was seen. Even as per inquest report dated 25.12.2008 there was no injury on the person of the deceased. As per opinion of the Doctors at Government Hospital, Sirsa, the possibility of death was due to Myocarditis and pneumonitis (natural disease). It is also the submission of learned counsel that the petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2008 and challan has already been presented in the case and as the trial may take some time to conclude, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Learned counsel for the respondent-State while opposing the bail submits that in view of the involvement of the petitioner and seriousness of the offence, no case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner is the only accused in this case and even an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the additional accused moved by the prosecution has been dismissed. As per statement of PW-1, petitioner gave kick blows on the private parts of the deceased upon which he fell down and became unconscious. Even as per postmortem examination conducted by Board of Doctors at PGIMS Rohtak, there were as many as 12 injuries on the person of deceased and cause of death was due to injuries found on the dead body. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other Crl. Misc. No. M-9296 of 2010 (3) documents available on the file. In this case, as per statement of the complainant, petitioner gave kick blows on the private parts of Bablir (deceased) and due to that he fell down and became unconscious. The alleged occurrence took place on 24.12.2008 at 6.30 pm and the deceased was taken to hospital at 8.05 pm. Ruqa was sent to SHO Police Station City Sirsa by the Doctors of Government Hospital, Sirsa. The FIR was got registered at 2.50 am on 25.12.2008. Special Report was sent to Illaqa Magistrate at 5.50 am on 25.12.2008. Postmortem was conducted at General Hospital, Sirsa on 25.12.2008 and as per postmortem report, no injury was there on private parts and no external mark of injury was there on the person of the deceased. Subsequently, the postmortem was got conducted at PGIMS Rohtak on 26.12.2008 and 12 injuries were found on the person of deceased but there was no mention of any injury on the private part of the deceased. The opinion with regard to cause of death was to be given on receipt of the report of chemical analysis of the viscera and the result of histopathological examination. All injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and were recent in duration and caused by blunt object. As per report of chemical examiner dated 31.3.2009, all the body parts and exhibits gave negative tests for common poison and ethyl alcohol. Two different opinions given by both the Doctors at Sirsa and Rohtak are totally a different version. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per opinion given by Doctor at Sirsa, there were no injuries on the person of deceased and the opinion given by Doctor of PGIMS, Rohtak seems to be procured, is totally baseless at this stage. As per contents of the FIR, the ocular version of the complainant is closer to the opinion given by the Doctor of PGIMS Rohtak. As per FIR, kick blows were given on the private parts of deceased due to which he fell down, became unconscious Crl. Misc. No. M-9296 of 2010 (4) and subsequently died. In cross-examination, PW-7 Dr. S.S. Chauhan, Government Hospital, Sirsa has stated that possibility of death due to Myocarditis and pneumonitis (natural disease) cannot be excuded.”. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the petitioner is the only accused in this case, no ground for grant of regular bail at this stage is made out. Petition is dismissed accordingly. It would also not be proper to comment anything on the merits of the case as it may affect the trial at this stage which is likely to be concluded. In this case material witnesses have already been examined and trial is likely to conclude and the petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2008, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 28.9.2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No