CRM No. M-8833 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-8833 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2009 Meharban and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Premjit S. Hundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Diwan S. Aalakha, Advocate for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a prayer for regular bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323, 324, 452, 427, 285, 336, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Jathlana, District Yamuna Nagar, vide FIR No.80 dated 30th November, 2008. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of one Liakat Ali, who alleged that on 29th November, 2008, when he was coming back to his village Naharpur from Yamuna Nagar, he received a phone call from his house that his brother had been attacked by Liakat son of Jamshed. On reaching the house, the complainant heard cries of Akhtar and some fire shots. Liakat and Riasat were dragging the brother of the CRM No. M-8833 of 2009 2 complainant out of his house by putting a bed sheet around his neck. Both are alleged to be carrying Kirpans. Other accused were allegedly carrying swords, hockey, sticks etc. and were accompanying them. Meharban son of Adrish Mohd. (petitioner No.1) is said to be carrying a country made pistol. Kirpan blows were inflicted on brother of the complainant by Rafakat Mohd. and Riasat causing injuries on his neck and head. Injured Akhtar succumbed of his injuries on 5th December, 2008 in a private hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that no role is ascribed to the petitioners in the crime. According to the counsel though petitioner No.1 was carrying a gun, petitioner Nos.4 and 6 country made pistols, however, no firearm injury was caused. The deceased did not die due to any gun shot injury. He has further submitted that petitioner No.11 is a juvenile and thus deserves the concession of bail. Learned counsel has also argued that cause of death is stated to be myocardial infarction. Since the deceased was suffering from chronic ischaemic heart disease, cause of death of the deceased cannot be the injuries suffered in the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that all the accused armed with deadly weapons, attacked the deceased to execute their common object. They caused several injuries to the deceased resulting in his death. According to the counsel, the injuries caused in the occurrence precipitated myocardial infarction. CRM No. M-8833 of 2009 3 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. While dealing with the contention regarding cause of death, the trial court referred to opinion of the doctor, according to which possibility of myocardial infarction being precipitated by the injuries on the person of the deceased, could not be ruled out. Eight injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The same as described in the medicolegal report, are as under:- “i. Incised wound on right occipital region of the size of 8 x 0.5 x 10 cm near the right ear, bone deep. ii. Incised wound 10 cm x 4 x 0.5 cm on right elbow bone deep. iii. Incised wound 10 x 5 cm on the right leg. iv. Lacerated wound on the base of left hand 5 x 5 cm. v. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm on the tip of right little finger. vi. Contusion 10 x 5 cm on the right thigh. vii. Incised wound 12 x 0.5 cm on the vault of the skull. viii. Reddish blue bruise on the back of buttocks 5 x 3 cm and 7 x 3 cm obliquely placed.” It is, thus, clear that number of injuries were inflicted on the deceased. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the same may have precipitated myocardial infarction as opined by the doctor. As regards argument of the counsel that no role is ascribed to the petitioner, it is evident that all of them together had attacked the brother of the CRM No. M-8833 of 2009 4 complainant. They were armed with various weapons including country made pistols and swords. In my considered view, the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage when no prosecution witness has been examined. In case enlarged on bail, the possibility of the petitioners tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out. As regards plea of the counsel for bail to petitioner No.11 being a juvenile, he will be at liberty to move the appropriate forum for establishing that he is a juvenile. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, stage of the trial, allegations against the accused, I do not find it a fit case for granting them the concession of bail. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 06, 2009 'rajpal'