Crl.M.No. M-11540/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M-11540/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2010. Ravinder Singh @ Bablu ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Bipin Ghai,Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sandeep Gehlawat,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,Addl.AG Haryana Jaswant Singh.J. Prayer under Section 439 Cr.PC is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.144 dated 16.7.2009 under Sections 148,149,302,216,120-B IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at PS Israna. Notice was issued to respondent-State. Reply has been filed by Sh. Rajender Singh IPS, SSP, Panipat. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 15.7.2009 one Hitesh son of Ved Parkash was murdered by Jagbir etc. The friends of said Hitesh were on a hunt to find the accused Jagbir etc. who killed said Hitesh. It is further alleged in the FIR that on 16.7.2009, Sanju, Satish, Jitender @ Kala, Ajmer, Bablu and Pardeep residents of Crl.M.No. M-11540/2010(O&M) 2 Chamrara and Puran came in a Safari Vehicle No.HR-99-7323 driven by one Vikram descended on the fields where deceased Bijender and Surender (brothers of Jagbir) were present. The aforesaid accused were joined by Dinesh and Anil. Accused Puran and Dinesh fired shots at Surender and Bijender. Bijender died at the spot while Surender died later in the hospital. Accordingly, the FIR in question was recorded. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the time of occurrence but no injury has been attributed to him. Thus, it is contended that he is entitled to the grant of bail during the pendency of the trial. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel. It is submitted that the case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence and due to fierce animosity between the accused and complainant side there is every likelihood of endangering the life of witnesses in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that five accused in this case have already been declared P.Os. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the reply filed by the State, in my opinion, no case for grant of bail is made out. In para 6 of the reply, it has been stated that:- “6. Since the commission of present occurrence, District Police, Panipat had continuously Crl.M.No. M-11540/2010(O&M) 3 patrolling at Village Chamrara, Police Station Israna, District Panipat in order to maintain law and order situation and to protect the life of witnesses. It is matter of record that 32 police officials (Sub Inspector=1, Head Constable=1, Constables=30) of Ist Batallion of Haryana Armed Police were deputed at Village Chamrara in order to maintain law and order situations and to protect the witness and to avoid untoward incident vide Police Haryana order no. 22672-76/OPS-I dated 24.8.09 issued from the office of Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Haryana and 6 Police Officials with two Gypsy and two Motor Cycles of District Police,Panipat are deputed and doing their duty regularly at Village Chamrara in order to maintain law and order situations and protect the life of witnesses and inform whereabouts of the proclaimed offenders of this case. The peaceful situation of village may be badly affected, if bail is granted to the petitioner/accused.” Keeping in view the fact that (i) the case is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence, (ii) five of the accused are still Crl.M.No. M-11540/2010(O&M) 4 P.Os., (iii) revengeful attitude between the complainant and the accused party; and (iv) the volatile situation prevailing in the Village Chamrara, no case for grant of bail is made out. Dismissed. 8.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge