Crl. Misc. No.M-1439 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-1439 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 26, 2010 Shishpal …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Kuldip Singh alleging that he has got two elder brothers Dalbir Singh and Surjit Singh. On May 14, 2007, on the occasion of marriage of daughter of Deva Singh, chacha of complainant, Baru Ram started fight with his nephew Anil but it was ignored and Baru Ram etc. were made to understand and leave. On May 16, 2007, Baru Ram gave injuries to Anil Kumar and Devender Kumar while they were sleeping and Crl. Misc. No.M-1439 of 2010 [2] on May 17, 2007 on the statement of Anil Kumar, an FIR was registered against Sandeep, Medu, Baru and two others. On May 24, 2007 at about 4.00 p.m., when nephew of the complainant Anil and Vinod were passing by the house of Dariya Singh, Dariya Singh exhorted Shishpal petitioner, Bani Singh, Subhash and Tek Chand sons of Dariya Singh, Ajit, Ramesh, Lalit and Baru Ram who were armed with illegal and licensed weapons started firing at the nephews of the complainant. As a result of which Anil Kumar received gunshot and fell outside the house of Dariya Singh while Vinod received bulled injury on the head. The occurrence as witnessed by the complainant and his brother. While the complainant made an attempt to take both the injured in their vehicle, the vehicle of the complainant was fired at. The complainant was able to pick Vinod but was unable to pick Anil as there was indiscriminate firing. Vinod was admitted in Sapra Hospital whereas the other nephew Anil succumbed to the injuries outside the house of Dariya Singh. Vinod died during treatment at Sapra Hospital, Hissar. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused is that they had killed the nephews of the complainant by firing on them. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complainant party duly armed had come to the house of Dariya Singh and attacked with weapons. In retaliation, shots were fired at from a single weapon from the side of petitioner which resulted in the death of Anil and Vinod. Counsel submitted that as per the post-mortem reports of the deceased, there were only three injuries and by no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that there has been indiscriminate firing by a number of accused. Counsel for Crl. Misc. No.M-1439 of 2010 [3] the petitioner has referred to few photographs indicating that damage has been done to the outer doors and wall of the house of Dariya Singh which is indicative of the fact that the house of Dariya Singh was fired at and it was only in self-defence that the firing was started from his house. It has further been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody for the last more than two years and 11 months and further proceedings in the trial Court have been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as in proceedings in an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. certain accused mentioned in column No.2 were not summoned by the trial Court but the High Court had ordered the summoning of said additional accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the further proceedings before the trial Court and now the matter is pending for July 5, 2010. Counsel submits that in view of a strong plea of self-defence and the delay caused in the trial without the fault of the petitioner, the petitioner can be granted the concession of regular bail. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of this case and carefully appreciated the contentions of the counsel and I am of the view that whether the petitioner exceeded self-defence is to be determined on the appreciation of evidence during trial. The stay of the proceedings before the trial Court to determine whether against the order of the High Court in summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. may be causing an indirect discomfort to the petitioner but the petitioner derive the benefit of any interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by alleging that prejudice is being caused to him. Crl. Misc. No.M-1439 of 2010 [4] I do not find any sufficient ground to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner in view of the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner in a double murder case Dismissed. April 26, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE