Crl. Misc. No. M-27016 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-27016 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 16, 2011 Parveen …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Ramesh Kumar alleging that when complainant was going back to his house on October 12, 2010 alongwith Narender at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner and Saminder alongwith Mukesh Devi wife of Parveen and Tasvir mother of Parveen forcibly dragged Pawan @ Desi inside their house while beating him. On this Pawan raised hue and cry to escape from Crl. Misc. No. M-27016 of 2011 [2] their clutches. The complainant ran away from the spot and informed the family members of Pawan @ Desi that he was being beaten by sons of Bhagat Singh in their house. When complainant alongwith other family members of Pawan @ Desi reached near the street outside the house of Bhagat Singh, Pawan @ Desi was killed by petitioner, his brother and ladies of the family of Bhagat Singh. Dead body of Pawan was lying in their house. Pawan @ Desi was murdered with sharp-edged weapons by petitioner, his brother and other ladies of the family of Bhagat Singh. Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Ghai has vehemently contended that it is a case of cross-version. Case under Section 307 IPC had been registered against complainant Ramesh Kumar on the allegations that the deceased Desi had come to the house of the petitioner alongwith two persons and fired shots causing injuries to the brother of the petitioner as well as to the father of the petitioner. Injuries were caused by the brother of the petitioner in self-defence. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was Pawan @ Desi, deceased who fired shots hitting Bhagat Singh, father of the petitioner and Saminder, brother of the petitioner. Copy of the MLR and bed head ticket of Bhagat Singh has been placed on record which indicates a lacerated wound present on the right chest. On x-ray, bullet was found in the body. The operational note indicates that the liver of Bhagat Singh was damaged. The operation notes indicate that the surgery for bullet injury was conducted on the person of Bhagat Singh. Recovery memo of . 32 bore pistol is indicative of the fact that the said pistol was found lying near the dead body of Pawan. An empty cartridge of .32 bore was also Crl. Misc. No. M-27016 of 2011 [3] recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that a case under Section 307 IPC has been registered at the instance of Jarin Kumar son of Bhagat Singh against Pawan Kumar and Sandeep alleging that deceased Pawan Kumar had fired a shot hitting the stomach of his father and head of his brother Saminder. The cross-version, the recovery of the dead body from the house of the petitioner; the bullet injury on the person of Bhagat Singh, father of the petitioner are the circumstances prima facie indicating that either it was a case of self-defence or it was a case where self-defence has been acceded. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is sufficient to observe that most of the material witnesses i.e. Ramesh Kumar and Narinder have already been examined. The petitioner has been in custody w.e.f. October 12, 2010. The deceased had a farsa injury on his neck which has caused death and the farsa has been got recovered by Saminder. Chances of tampering with the evidence, at this stage, are remote. Prima facie, it is apparent that it was Saminder who has been attributed barchi blow on the person of the deceased. Petitioner in such circumstances can be granted the concession of regular bail. Petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the condition that the petitioner will not indulge in any criminal assault or threatening exercise. In case of any such eventuality, it will be open to the complainant to seek the cancellation of bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-27016 of 2011 [4] December 16, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE