IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No. 30552 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 11.11.2010 Virender @ Nitu ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present:- Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Punjab. SABINA, J The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No. 174 dated 21.8.2009 under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Israna, District Panipat. The contents of the FIR as reproduced in para of the petition reads as under:- “Stated that I am a resident of the above address and am studying in BA I in the Government Secondary School. Yesterday 20.8.2009, Gulab Singh@ Bindu s/o Rajpal, caste Jat, and Ravinder, caste Brahmin, resident of Village Butana PS Sadar, Gohana, District Sonepat, had come to me during the day. Gulab Singh told me that today in village Palri, he and Tejpal s/o Balbir, caste Jat, r/o Palri along with his brothers, had had an alteration over a mud slush that had formed in the street on account of the installation of a hand pump, but which had been sorted out with the intervention of the villagers who had collected there. In the evening, at about 6 pm, and CRM-M No. 30552 of 2010 (O&M) at the asking of Gulab, I had gone to the village Palri on his motorcycle to leave Gulab's house where he stays with his mother. We went and sat on the roof of the house. Gulab's aunt was also present on the roof of the house where we were sitting. At about 11.00 pm, we heard some persons talking in the street and Gulab and Ravinder went down and out into the street. Tejpal s/o Balbir, caste Jat, r/o Palri along with his brothers Raja and Dharmabir were present along with some 8/10 persons whose names I do not know. I previously knew Tejpal and his brothers. Tejpal was carrying a knife and his brothers were carrying a pahwa (bed stand) and lathis. I saw all this from the roof. As I was looking, Tejpal stabbed Gulab with the knife on his waist and all the others also caused a number of injuries to Tejpal and Ravinder with their respective weapons. On account of the injuries, Tejpal died on the spot and injured Ravinder escaped on the motorcycle, I do not know where, I stayed hidden on the roof because of fear. Tejpal etc. had run away with their weapons. Now on your coming I have come to you. The motive for the murder of Gulab @ Bindu was bitterness created on account of the mud/slush that had collected in the street and the altercation that had taken place in the morning. Necessary action be taken against them. I have got my statement recorded and have heard it. It is correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. PW- Sheela has stated that the petitioner was also present at the spot but no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner was not armed with any weapon at the time of alleged occurrence nor any weapon has CRM-M No. 30552 of 2010 (O&M) been recovered from the petitioner during investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and stated that the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in the nature. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of concession of bail. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Although PW-Sheela has stated about the presence of the petitioner at the spot but she has not attributed any specific injury to the petitioner on the person of the deceased. The said PW has not stated as to whether the petitioner was armed with any weapon or not. Admittedly no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner during investigation. Petitioner is in custody for the last one year. In these circumstances it would be just and expedient to release the petitioner on bail. Whether the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Panipat. (SABINA) November 11, 2010 JUDGE shabha