CRM-M-24095 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-24095 of 2011 Decided on 28.9.2011 Narender @ Kala --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra.Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sagar Deswal,AAG,Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J: (ORAL) Affidavit of Kuldeep Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak is filed today in Court and a copy thereof is given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has payed for regular bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No. 484 dated 12.9.2004, under Sections 302,120-B of the IPC and 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Civil Lines Rohtak, District Rohtak. The FIR is registered on the statement of Sube Singh son of Nand Ram in respect of murder of Vijay Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a tussle between deceased Vijay Singh and one Kanwar Singh with regard to a plot. After the investigation, the challan was presented only against Dilbag Singh @ Bag Singh. However, the eye witness named three persons Balu, Dharam Pal and Raju, as a result of which Dilbag Singh @ Bag Singh who was tried as an accused in a Sessions Case No.30 of 2006/2007 has CRM-M-24095 of 2011 2 been acquitted. Unfortunately, the other persons namely Balu and Dharam Pal have expired and Raju has already been released on bail while Kanwar Singh has been found to be innocent by the police during the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been named by any of the eye witness except for the co-accused Raju who made a disclosure statement while in police custody about the involvement of the present petitioner. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the State had pointed out that there are three more cases registered against the petitioner and consequently, the Investigating Officer was directed to file an affidavit, which has been filed today and is taken on record, according to which, the petitioner was, in fact, involved in three other cases i.e. FIR No. 23 dated 05.2.2006 under Sections 436,302,148,149,449 and 506 IPC at police station City Bahadurgarh (Jhajjar); FIR No. 39 dated 24.2.2006 under Sections 148,149,302, 506 and 120-B IPC and 25 of the Arms Act at police station City Bahadurgarh (Jhajjar) and FIR No. 353 dated 05.9.2010 under Section 174-A IPC and 25 of Arms Act at police station City Bahadurgarh (Jhajjar). It is mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the three aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been named by the co-accused in his dislosure statement but at the same time, he has admitted that there is no other case pending against the petitioner nor he is a previous convict. He submits that there are 64 witnesses, out of whom only eight witnesses have been examined so far. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking CRM-M-24095 of 2011 3 into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on merit, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court who is free to impose any other condition to procure the presence of the petitioner regularly during the course of trial. 28.9.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge