IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-4245 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.2.2010 Sunil and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 13.6.2009 for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 364 and 302 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Krishna wife of Sukhbir who is the mother of Mukesh (deceased). It is alleged by the complainant that on 13.6.2009, she along with her son Mukesh (deceased) had gone to the hospital of Dr. Mittal in their Scorpio vehicle. Due to rush of the patients, they were returning home. Maya Devi, mother-in-law of Mukesh (deceased), Priya sister-in-law and Chhavi, daughter of Mukesh aged one year was with them. After travelling for some distance, they noticed that a white colour vehicle was following them. Thereupon, Mukesh (deceased) sped away his Scorpio vehicle. At the crossing of Sector Crl. Misc. No. M-4245 of 2010 [2] 12 at about 10.00 am, the said white colour vehicle way laid their vehicle. At the same time, another black colour vehicle reached there. About 8/10 boys came out from the said black vehicle and they forcibly dragged Mukesh (deceased) out of his Scorpio vehicle. They threatened the others who were sitting in the Scorpio vehicle and locked the vehicle. Out of the boys, the complainant Krishna identified Anil @ Monu, Billu (petitioner No.3), Sunil (petitioner No.1) and Sushil (petitioner No.2) as also Amit and Chhota, but she could not identify the remaining boys. The said persons put Mukesh (deceased) in their white vehicle and the black vehicle followed it. The complainant accompanied by her younger brother namely Puran Bhagat and brother-in-law Suresh reached Rathdhana Road through Sidharath Colony for searching his son Mukesh (deceased). They saw that the dead body of Mukesh was lying in Shivji Dham, village Rathdhana. The accused had killed her son Mukesh with fire arms after taking him to the fields of Shivji Dham. About two months earlier, Monu had got a case registered against her sons Mukesh (deceased) and Manoj regarding a quarrel that had taken place. Both her sons out of fear were hiding themselves from Monu. Monu had threatened that he would murder the sons of the complainant and for how long would she hide them. The husband of the complainant namely Sukhbir was away to Haridwar. She had been waiting for him who had since returned. The complainant after leaving her brother-in-law and son with the dead body, was going to the Police Station to report the matter then the police party met them. She demanded for action being taken against the accused including Crl. Misc. No. M-4245 of 2010 [3] the petitioners and others who had murdered her son Mukesh due to prior enmity. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent and are sought to be falsely implicated due to rivalry. It is submitted that the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak has ordered a probe into the matter. However, the complainant in-collusion with the local police is taking steps to arrest the petitioners. It is further submitted that on 13.6.2009 Sunil (petitioner No.1) from 9.25 am to 14.30 pm was present at Veetee Fine Foods Limited, Ganaur. A reference has been made to the Visitors Register (Annexure P2) in this regard. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I find no merit in the same. The petitioners are specifically named as accused in the case of murder of Mukesh. The veracity of the defence or plea of alibi raised by petitioner No.1 is not to be gone into or examined at this stage. In case the police is conducting an inquiry, it is for them to arrest or not to arrest the accused on the basis of material on record. A perusal of the order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat shows that Public Prosecutor for the State had opposed the application for bail. It was inter alia contended that the petitioners were evading arrest and warrants of arrest were got issued from the Court. Besides, they were required for custodial interrogation. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the matter and observed that as per the prosecution allegations, the accused were required for custodial interrogation. Besides, the allegations against Crl. Misc. No. M-4245 of 2010 [4] them were very serious and specific. Accordingly, the concession of bail was declined. In the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in a case for the offence of murder, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 16, 2010 amit