Crl.Misc No M-28271 of 2010 Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. *** ORDER The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Vikram Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 49 dated 15.3.2010 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 307, 452 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station City, Rewari. Notice of motion was issued on 28th September, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as no case under Sections 147, 149, 323, 307, 452 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act is made out. The petitioner himself received injuries at the hands of complainant party and he also remained admitted in General Hospital, Rewari for long time. The petitioner solemnized love- marriage with Jyoti Yadav on 27th April, 2009 without the consent of her parents and due to that grudge, the parents of Jyoti gave threat to the petitioner to eliminate both of them. The petitioner as well as his wife filed Crl.Misc.No.M-15550 of 2009 for providing protection to their lives and liberty wherein directions were issued to Superintendent of Police, Rewari to consider the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with law vide order dated 30th May, 2009. Subsequently, after issuance of notice of motion, the situation was calm down and there was no grudge on the part of family members of his wife and the said petition was not pressed at that stage on the Crl.Misc No M-28271 of 2010 [2] basis of reply submitted by the official respondents and said petition was disposed of accordingly vide order dated 15th July, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present FIR was registered just to falsely implicate the petitioner. As per allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is alleged to have fired two shots, one of which was hit on the left arm of the complainant and the petitioner allegedly ran away from the spot along with other accused. On the basis of supplementary statement recorded by the police, the third fire was shot by co-accused Manoj alias Takla which hit on left arm of the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that on the complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner, no action was taken and instead of taking any action against complainant, the present FIR has been registered. The petitioner is in custody since 14th June, 2010. Mr.S.S.Mor, learned Sr.DAG, Haryana opposes the bail but he has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner solemnized marriage with the daughter of the complainant and a petition was filed by the petitioner as well as his wife for providing protection to their lives and liberty and Superintendent of Police,Rewari was directed to look into the grievances of the petitioner. Subsequently, that petition was not pressed as the family members of wife of the petitioner were having no grouse against the petitioner and the present FIR was registered after that, just to falsely implicate the petitioner which is a counter- blast to the grievances of marriage with the daughter of the Crl.Misc No M-28271 of 2010 [3] complainant and the present petitioner. Certain photographs have been placed on record which clearly shows that the petitioner was mercilessly beaten by the complainant party. Even a complaint was filed by his wife with a prayer for investigation of the case by some senior police officer. It has also been mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner was not at fault and he was called by giving telephonic call and was beaten and injuries were caused to him on head, mouth and other parts of his body. No action was taken against the complainant party. Although it would not be proper to comment much more on the merits of the case, at this stage as it may influence the trial but it is a case where FIR has been registered subsequently after marriage of the petitioner with the daughter of the complainant. The petitioner is in custody since 14th June, 2010 and trial may take some time in final conclusion and no purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts as mentioned above, the petitioner deserves the concession of regulare bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Rewari. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) December 16, 2010 JUDGE raghav Crl.Misc No M-28271 of 2010 [4]