Crl. Misc.No. M- 33066 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No. M- 33066 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: November 3, 2011 Dinesh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate, for for the petitioner. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner/accused, Dinesh, has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 69 dated 18.2.2011 registered under Sections 302, 342, 323, 382/149, 148, 201 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Police Station Mohindergarh. He has contended therein that it is a case of version and cross-version. Initially the incident was reported by one Krishan Pal to the police that several persons including Dharampal and Krishan inflicted injuries on the complainant and himself, for which both of them were medically examined. He received two injuries, whereas Krishan Pal received four injuries. Regarding that FIR No. 68 dated 18.2.2011 was registered under Section 323/149, 148 and 506 IPC against the said persons. It was only thereafter that the present FIR was got registered as a counter- blast. It is very much clear from the contents of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that he did not cause any injury to any of the deceased. As per the version of the complainant, he Crl. Misc.No. M- 33066 of 2011 2 had caused injury with the help of a pharsi but no such injury was found in the medical examination of the complainant. In all these circumstances he is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I do not find any ground for granting benefit of bail to the petitioner. The present FIR cannot be said to be a case of version and cross-version, as both the FIR pertains to two different and independent occurrences. The occurrence as mentioned in FIR No. 68, had taken place on 18.2.2011 at about 8.50 p.m., whereas the occurrence mentioned in the present FIR had taken place on the same day at about 9.30 p.m. It may be said that on account of the injuries so caused by the present complainant party to the accused, that they attacked the complainant party. The injuries said to have been caused by the accused party resulted in double murder. No doubt no injury has been attributed to the present petitioner, which might have been caused to any of the deceased. As per the contents of the FIR he was armed with a pharsi with the help of which he caused injury to the other injured. However, it is very much clear from the contents of that FIR that he, alongwith other accused, was forming an unlawful assembly and the double murder was committed in the prosecution of the common object of that assembly, which attracts his vicarious liability. In such like cases where unarmed persons are attacked by so many persons, while armed with lethal weapons and cause gruesome murder of two persons, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of bail. The petition is dismissed accordingly. November 3, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE Crl. Misc.No. M- 33066 of 2011 3