Crl. Misc. No. M –17955 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M –17955 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 6.8.2010 Virender ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Crl. Misc. No. 39550-51 of 2010 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. Misc. No. M – 17955 of 2010 Heard. The petitioner – Virender has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 144 dated 24.6.2009 registered under Sections 302, 216 read with 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, in Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. He has contended therein that he never indulged in any such crime and has been falsely implicated. The complainant, who got lodged the FIR, never disclosed the names of the assailants though according to Dinesh PW, he had narrated whole of the occurrence to that complainant. Moreover only lacerated wound was found on the forehead of the deceased and that Crl. Misc. No. M –17955 of 2010 (O&M) -2- injury was found simple in nature and no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out against him. It was on the statement of Jitender Kumar @ Jeetu brother of Sonu @ Nain Singh, deceased, that the present FIR was got registered. According to him after coming back from strolling and leaving the deceased in the ground of the school, he was sleeping in the house when Dinesh came to him and disclosed that deceased had been shot dead by someone. On receiving that information he went to that place and found the dead body of the deceased lying there. He did not disclose the names of the assailants and the manner in which the occurrence took place, in the FIR. However, during the investigation statement of Dinesh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and he came up with a detailed version about this occurrence. He narrated therein that on the night of occurrence he was coming towards vacant plots on Shahpur Khurd road, when he saw a Tata Safari car stopped near plots from which the deceased and the present petitioner alighted. The petitioner picked up a bottle and struck the same on the head of the deceased. Thereafter the petitioner held the deceased tightly and other accused; namely, Bachu, took the pistol from the present petitioner and fired a shot in the head of the deceased which ultimately resulted in a death of the deceased. He went to the house of the deceased and narrated the occurrence to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once names of the assailants were disclosed by this Dinesh PW to the complainant, he was duty bound to disclose the same in the FIR and non-disclosing of the Crl. Misc. No. M –17955 of 2010 (O&M) -3- names in the FIR itself is a ground of concluding that the petitioner was not present at the spot and has been falsely implicated subsequently. He also tried to argue that according to the complainant he had left the deceased in the ground of the school at about 9.00 PM and according to Dinesh alleged occurrence took place at that very time; which itself creates a doubt in the version so put forward by this witness. For deciding the present petition the evidence so collected during the investigation is not to be scrutinized that meticulously. It is to be seen if any such prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is very much clear from the statement of Dinesh that the petitioner not only struck the bottle on the head of the deceased but also held him tightly when other accused shot him dead after taking the pistol from this very petitioner, which shows that they had been sharing the common intention. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and the cirumstances in which the same was committed, I do not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed accordingly. August 6, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge