In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-1168 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Anil @ Neela and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent Criminal Misc. No.M-1499 of 2009 Sunil @ Sheela and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent Criminal Misc. No.M-1748 of 2009 Satyawan @ Nanha ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent Criminal Misc. No.M-2098 of 2009 Rajbir @ Raja ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent Criminal Misc. No.M-2862 of 2009 Jagdish @ Jaggi ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, Mr.Rajiv Kaswan, Advocate, Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, Mr.Kuldeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** Criminal Misc. No.1168 of 2009 -2- SABINA, J. Vide this order CRM-M Nos. 1168, 1499, 1748, 2098 and 2862 of 2009 will be disposed of. These petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 198 dated 10.7.2008, under Sections 302, 201, 120- B/34/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Julana, District Jind. As per the prosecution case, on 9.7.2008 at about 7.00 p.m. Jaggi, who was having a utensils shop in Julana Mandi came to the house of the complainant and took her husband Ranbir with him on his motor cycle. At about 9.00 p.m., brother of father-in-law of the complainant informed her that Rohtash met him at country made liquor vend and inquired about Ranbir. Rohtash also told him that Ranbir was doing illegal act of selling liquor brought from outside and they would catch him. When husband of the complainant did not return home up to 10.00 p.m. then Surender was sent to the bus stand by her father-in-law but Ranbir could not be traced. At about 7.00 a.m., on the next day, the complainant was informed that the motor cycle of her husband was parked in front of the gate of the water tank and Ranbir was lying dead near the same. Her husband had been killed by Rohtash, Wazir and the other contractors of country made liquor vend. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that except petitioner-Jagdish @ Jaggi, the others were not named in the FIR. Their disclosure statements were recorded but no recovery was Criminal Misc. No.1168 of 2009 -3- effected on the basis of the same. Similarly situated co-accused Ramesh @ Kala had been allowed bail by this Court on 17.12.2008 in CRM-M No.31307 of 2008. The petitioners were in custody since July, 2008. So far as petitioner Jagdish @ Jaggi is concerned, although he was named in the FIR but no further role was attributed to him except that Ranbir had gone with him as they were residing in the neighbourhood and thereafter, they had parted. He was not a partner in the liquor vend and merely running a utensils shop. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the bail petitions. Since co-accused Ramesh @ Kala, who was similarly situated as of the petitioners except petitioner-Jagdish @ Jaggi, has been allowed bail on 17.12.2008, these petitions for bail are liable to be allowed. So far as petitioner Jagdish @ Jaggi is concerned, although it is stated that he had gone with Ranbir at about 7.00 p.m. but thereafter, no further role was attributed to him nor he is a partner in the liquor vend. The role, if any, played by the petitioners would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are in custody since July, 2008, these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. (SABINA) February 24, 2009 JUDGE anita