IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-2312 of 2009 Date of decision : July 30, 2009 Jameel ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RS Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jamshed Ahmad, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana with Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Jameel has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 233 dated 27.9.2006 under sections 148, 149, 341, 506, 302 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Hathin, District Mewat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner raised lalkara and fired from his gun hitting the deceased Khalil Ahmed who fell on the ground. Petitioner's co-accused Hamid gave Pharsa blow on the back of the neck of the deceased. Resham gave tabbal blow on the head. After taking Pharsa from Hamid, the petitioner also inflicted a Pharsa blow on the neck of the deceased. Rajjak also fired a shot from pistol. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that injury no. 5 found on the deceased was entry wound but no metallic object Criminal Misc. No. M-2312 of 2009 -2- was seen and no radio opaque shadows were seen on x-ray examination. However, there is direct allegation that the petitioner had fired from gun. The aforesaid injury no. 5 is fire arm injury or not will be decided by the trial court at the time of final adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner further vehemently contended that injury no. 1 has proved fatal but the same is not attributed to the petitioner and is rather attributed to Resham who has since been granted bail. The contention cannot be accepted because the said injury is on the back of the neck, as also prominently depicted in the diagrams of the post mortem report. On the other hand, according to the FIR, the said injury could either have been caused by the petitioner or by Hamid who has since been declared as proclaimed offender. It would thus mean that the petitioner not only fired from his gun but also either the petitioner or Hamid caused fatal blow. It is correct that the petitioner is in custody since 3.10.2006 but this by itself is not a sufficient ground to release the petitioner on bail keeping in view the allegations and the role attributed to him. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, I do not find it to be a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. The bail petition is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 30, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'