IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M-30877 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Ved parkash …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr RS Rai, Sr Advocate with Mr Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr AS Ghangas, DAG Haryana. S.S.SARON, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc M-30877 of 2008 filed by Ved Parkash and Criminal Misc M-32913 of 2008 filed by Brijesh as they arise out of the same FIR which has been registered on the statement of Mukesh son of Mahender Singh. In the FIR that has been registered, it has been alleged that on 13.7.2008 at about 5 O’clock in the evening, Jagira Balmiki along with Shakti, Janak, Anil sons of Jai Dev Gujjar and others were quarreling with their neighbour namely Pappu son of Chandan; then Pappu rushed towards the house of the complainant and he was saved by them. After intervention, the complainant sent both the parties to their houses. Then at about 10.30 at night, when complainant – Mukesh and his brother Prem Pal (deceased), Ram Kumar and Bunty were sleeping in their house, suddenly Jagira Balmiki, Shakti, Anil, Janak sons of Jai Dev, Sahil son of Bhagwat Prasad Tiwari, Narender son of Khazan Singh, Ved son of Vasu Dev and Gullu Cr Misc M-30877 of 2008 2 came to their house after hatching a conspiracy. They were armed with weapons and they attacked the complainant side with the grievance of the occurrence in which Pappu was saved by them. They started giving beatings. Jagira caught hold of Prem Pal (deceased) – brother of the complainant while he was sleeping and Narender (non-petitioner) gave a knife blow on the left side of the chest of Prem Pal (deceased). Ved (petitioner) and Gullu (non-petitioner) inflicted kicks and fist blows to Prem Pal (deceased) and Ram Kumar. Janak (non-petitioner) gave a knife blow on the upper left side of the stomach of Ram Kumar and Anil gave a knife blow on the left hand elbow. Sahil and Shakti (non-petitioners) also caused injuries to Prem Pal (deceased) and Ram Kumar with their Lathis and a lot of blood was oozing from the bodies of Prem Pal and Ram Kumar. The complainant side raised alarm “Mar Diya Mar Diya”. Then Pardeep son of Harpal and Mukesh son of Nathi and the persons from the neighbourhood came on the spot and they intervened and then all the accused ran away along with their respective weapons. The complainant also caused injuries with lathis in his self-defence. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Ved Parkash has submitted that in the FIR the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted kicks and fist blows along with Gullu on the person of Prem Pal and Ram Kumar. It is submitted that in the post mortem report, no such injuries have been shown and there is an incised wound which is there on the left side of the chest besides hematoma on the occipital region. The cause of death, it is submitted, has been described as due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries to the heart which was observed to be ante mortem in nature. It is submitted that the deposition of Ram Kumar that the petitioner Ved Parkash had inflicted blows with the sword which he was Cr Misc M-30877 of 2008 3 having, is an after thought as the injury on the left hand elbow of Ram Kumar is attributed to Anil in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner – Brijesh has submitted that Brijesh was not named as an accused in the FIR and his name figures in the statements of Mukesh son of Nathi, Ram Kumar (injured) and Pardeep son of Harpal. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner having been named as an accused, is an after thought. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that Mukesh son of Nathi and Pardeep have clearly shown the involvement of the petitioner – Ved Parkash as well as petitioner – Brijesh. It is submitted that they have been attributed specific roles. It is also submitted that another FIR has been registered on 13.1.2009 against the side of the accused and the evidence in the case is to be recorded. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the main injury in the present case is attributed to Narender son of Khazan Singh who gave a knife blow on the left side of the chest of Ram Kumar. The said injury has been described as the cause of death in the post mortem report. The petitioner – Ved Parkash is stated to have inflicted kicks and fist blows along with Gullu. The other petitioner – Brijesh is not named in the FIR. The contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the State on the basis of the statements of Mukesh son of Nathi, Ram Kumar (injured) and Pardeep son of Harpal would more appropriately be considered and gone into by the trial Court after the evidence has been led by the prosecution. In the initial version which has come in the statement of the complainant – Mukesh son of Mohinder Singh, the allegations as have been made in the statements of Ram Kumar (injured) Cr Misc M-30877 of 2008 4 and that of Mukesh son of Nathi and Pardeep son of Harpal, are not there. Brijesh – petitioner is in fact not named as an accused in the initial FIR that was registered. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the concession of bail is extended to the respective petitioners – Ved parkash and Brijesh. Accordingly, both the criminal misc petitions are allowed and the petitioners – Ved Parkash (in Criminal Misc M-30877 of 2008) and Brijesh (in Criminal Misc M-32913 of 2008) shall, on their furnishing personal bond and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM Faridabad, be admitted to bail. 24.2.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge