In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ….. (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-6258 of 2009 ….. Date of decision:27.4.2009 Jai Pal …..Petitioner v. State of Haryana …..Respondent ….. Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. …… (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-10395 of 2009 ….. Anang Pal …..Petitioner v. State of Haryana …..Respondent ….. Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. …… S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-6258 of 2009 filed by Jai Pal son of Kishan Lal and Criminal Misc. No.M-10395 of 2009 filed by Anang Pal son of Raghbir for the grant of regular bail in a case Cr. Misc. No.M-6258 /2009 & Cr. Misc. No.M-10395/2009 [2] registered against them for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 302, 506 and 34 IPC. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Girraj son of Hukam Singh. It is alleged that he does agriculture work and they are two brothers. He was the elder and younger to him is Vijender. They both used to reside together and do agriculture work. In the year 1952-53 his grand- father Umed Singh had purchased 61 Kanals 18 Marlas of land from Lajwanti wife of Kanwar Gurdatt Singh Rajpoot. About four months ago Balbir, Jai Pal (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-6258 of 2009), Raghbir and Anang Pal (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-10395 of 2009), residents of Arua appointed Tirath Kumar son of Anang Pal (petitioner) as general power of attorney in respect of the land measuring 61 Kanals 18 Marlas owned by Kishan Lal, who was their grand-father. Though this Khewat is comprised of 339 Kanals 9 Marlas of land, all these persons except the complainant and his brother had purchased this land in share. It is alleged that Balbir, Jai Pal (petitioner), Raghbir and Anang Pal (petitioner) sons of Kishan Lal, residents of Arua used to claim this land as their own which was in fact in possession of the complainant since 1952 and the complainant had also filed a civil case in the Court at Faridabad against Balbir Singh etc. On 22.7.2008 at about 3.00 a.m., it is alleged that the complainant had gone to his village. His brother Vijender had remained in the fields and at home. On the previous night, he had slept in the fields. The complainant returned home in the morning at 4.00/5.00 a.m. after completing his work. His cousin Bir Singh met him and told him that previous night Balbir, Raghbir, Jai Pal (petitioner) and Anang Pal Cr. Misc. No.M-6258 /2009 & Cr. Misc. No.M-10395/2009 [3] (petitioner) sons of Kishan Lal and Tirath Kumar son of Anang Pal, residents of Arua came to the tube-well `Kotha' fully armed with `Dandas’ and swords at about 1.00/1.30 a.m. where Vijender was sleeping on a cot. All these persons inflicted injuries to Vijender with their respective weapons. Vijender cried in loud voice. Bir Singh who was irrigating his fields at a distance of one `Killa’ from there and he started approaching towards Vijender, then these persons threatened to kill him. In order to save his life, he hid himself in a `Jwar' field. He narrated all this to the complainant. It is alleged that the brother of the complainant, namely, Vijender had been murdered by Balbir, Jai Pal, Raghbir and Anang Pal sons of Kishan Lal and Tirath Kumar son of Anang Pal, all residents of Arua after conniving with each other. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners have submitted that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of hearsay of Bir Singh and the complainant had not seen the occurrence. It is also submitted that out of the accused which have been named in the FIR, Balbir had died on 9.6.1995 and Raghbir had died on 10.4.1996 i.e. 12-13 years earlier to the alleged occurrence. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire allegations as made in the FIR are false. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Balbir Singh and Raghbir Singh had died earlier to the occurrence, however, two other accused are named in the FIR and, therefore, are not liable to be granted the concession of bail. It is also stated that Bir Singh had appeared as PW-2 and he has named Jai Pal, Anang Pal and Tirath Kumar as the persons, who were killing Vijender. Cr. Misc. No.M-6258 /2009 & Cr. Misc. No.M-10395/2009 [4] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It may be noticed that a civil suit is pending between the sons of Kishan Lal and the complainant. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Girraj, who is the brother of deceased Vijender. He has narrated the occurrence as was informed to him by Bir Singh. Bir Singh while appearing as PW-2 has stated that he saw Jai Pal, Anang Pal and Tirath Kumar killing Vijender. During the occurrence they came towards him and they said that he should also be killed. Under fear, he took shelter in a `Jwar’ field and he remained there in the night and in the next morning when they went, he narrated the incident to Girraj, the brother of Vijender. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had heard the contents of his statement (Ex.DA) made before the Police which he stated that he never gave any such statement to the Police. The effect of the deposition of Bir Singh (PW-2) is to be considered by the trial Court after evidence has been led. For the present it is apparent that two of the accused who have been named by the complainant had died 12-13 years earlier to the occurrence. The possibility, therefore, of false case being set-up cannot entirely be ruled out. In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad shall be admitted to bail. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of Cr. Misc. No.M-6258 /2009 & Cr. Misc. No.M-10395/2009 [5] opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the evidence and the material as adduced before it. April 27, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*